Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Note on the consensus on the relative safety of eating food from GMOs, and opposition to it; an effort to clear the air a bit

Hi

I want to throw some statements out, and talk about them briefly.

First of all, folks objecting to the consensus keep piling in all kinds of issues that are unrelated to the relative safety of eating currently marketed foods from GMOs. The consensus has nothing to do with patents, or environmental effects, or industrial agriculture. The conversation about food-safety issues is complex on its own, and it would be really great if we keep the focus on food-safety when discussing this. Please, please open other sections, to discuss other issues.

OK here are a list of statements about food safety.

1) All GMOs are safe
2) Currently marketed GMOs are safe
3) The characterization of the risks/safety of eating currently marketed food from GMOs, relative to food from conventional organisms, is sufficient, and food from GMOs is more safe/less risky
4) The characterization of the risks/safety of eating currently marketed food from GMOs, relative to food from conventional organisms, is sufficient, and the risks/safety are equivalent
5) More characterization of the risks/safety of eating currently marketed food from GMOs, relative to food from conventional organisms, would be useful
6) The characterization of the risks/safety of eating currently marketed food from GMOs, relative to food from conventional organisms, is insufficient to make any statement of equivalency or lack thereof
7) The characterization of the risks/safety of eating currently marketed food from GMOs, relative to food from conventional organisms, is sufficient, and food from GMOs is less safe/more risky
8) Currently marketed GMOs are dangerous
9) All GMOs are dangerous

Each of these statements is 1) definitive (I used "is" and "are" carefully) and are non-overlapping with the others, with the exception of 5 which overlaps with all of them.

So what about them?

1) and 9) are ridiculous generalizations that nobody in a serious conversation should ever say about their own position or that of others. This is sloppy at best and taken at face value, fringe.
2) and 8) are somewhat less ridiculous generalizations that nobody in a serious conversation should ever say about their own position or that of others. This is sloppy at best and taken at face value, fringe.
3) and 7) have the benefit of being grounded in something defined (currently marketed products) and relative as opposed to absolute, but neither is supported by evidence. This too is fringe. (I anticipate argument from the fringe on this description of 7)
5) - I feel confident that there is no one reasonable who disagrees with this (I will be very surprised if someone does)

The really interesting and difficult conversation, is between 4) and 6). Although the consensus is at 4), a reasonable, scientifically-grounded conversation can be had with position 6). And here is the essence of the issue - the difference is not purely scientific. It is really a question of policy. Namely, risk management policy and the precautionary principle, which is one way to think about risk management. Risk management is an infamously difficult topic to communicate to the public. (Think about protecting New Orleans from flooding. We could spent a gazilion dollars and build levies and systems to ensure that New Orleans will never be flooded again. The higher the walls and the more secure the system, the more expensive, and the more sure that there will never be flooding. With respect to spending tax dollars responsibly, how much money should we spend? How sure should we be?)

The hard thing, is that risk management does employ science to identify the potential risks and to quantify or qualify them. And that is where things become very science-y again. But the key thing is to remember is that we are not talking about pure science - we are talking about the application of science to assess risk - about toxicology. The crux of the issue, is "how much and what kind of evidence is enough to meaningfully assess risk?" Respectable scientists who are not in the mainstream on this, like David Suzuki say "we do not have enough to know." (position 6) Seralini actually started out that way, and has sadly moved out to 7), pushing the conclusions of flawed studies to make statements way more definitive than his data can support. The consensus is that we have enough evidence for currently marketed GM food and it is as safe as/as risky as food from conventional sources. And that more information would be useful.

I threw this out here, to see if this could help focus the conversation and help move away from unproductive red herrings, so that we can move forward. I anticipate we may have more conversation about 7 but my hope is that it will quickly become clear that there is insufficient evidence to say, scientifically, that "The characterization of the risks/safety of eating currently marketed food from GMOs, relative to food from conventional organisms, is sufficient, and food from GMOs is less safe/more risky" Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I like this analysis, and agree with your conclusion, although I don't think most people would use the word "characterization" as you have it. In fact, I think you have found a point at which both sides might agree. How would it be used in the editing? I think the majority of the anti-GM camp would agree that the hazards are not established. More information would be useful. Most of the pros seem to think the issue is resolved, although I noted that most of the first six organizations in the references were gearing up to do more research. This is one reason why other editors have questioned whether they really supported the consensus statement, even when version of it were on their websites. Catrinka Trabont (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

CT, further research is always wanted; GM foods aren't exceptional in this. For example, when a new and useful technique for evaluating safety comes out, I think it would be suspicious if people didn't want to use it to test GM foods (or anything else).

The situation is somewhat like this: suppose we're 98% confident that X is true, where fact X is relevant to public safety. In other words, there's a 49/50 chance that further research will confirm that we're correct, and thus it will increase our confidence to 99% or 99.5%. This is important information. And if we're wrong, that's even more important to know (it is unlikely, but still a remote possibility). But this doesn't mean that we weren't already quite confident to begin with. These numbers are made up, of course, but the difference between 98% and 99% confidence is an important one even though we already started with a high confidence level. There is no contradiction between being confident in one's results and also supporting further research into those same results.

Additional note: further research can also be useful for other reasons, e.g. because the situation can change, and because the research can often be used to learn about related but separate topics as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This typology seems established to make the position (globally, a minority/fringe position) of the biotech industry and sympathetic (non-)regulators seem to be a reasonable and moderate position. Catrinka Talbot's interpretation and the subsequent reply indicate that the intended use of this framework is to downplay hazards and unknown aspects. Specifically, it lumps together true critics with those who say that more testing "would be good" but for some reason isn't necessary to establish safety. In so doing it does not conform well to the contours of the literature, as discussed in multiple literature reviewed. Furthermore, the article as it stands gives undue weight to this industry talking point (about comparative safety and products currently on the market), compared to many other possible statements. groupuscule (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

hi groupuscule. I'm sorry, I don't follow your remarks above. Who are the "true critics" you mention? To explain a bit, i think everybody wants more and better data. Regulators, whose job it is to assess how "substantially equivalent" a proposed new GM food to its conventional counterpart, and if it is not, what further tests should be done, definitely want more and better and would welcome it (and are working to get it) even with regard to products already on the market. Supporters of GM crops would love more data because they believe it would finally shut up the critics (dubious hope); critics would love more data since they believe it would get GM crops off the market finally. Who doesn't want more data? Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

oh and i also wanted to say, although regulators worldwide - especially in the EU - have followed the scientific consensus and found that they have enough data to approve food from currently marketed GM crops (all the same ones as we have in the US); two things have prevented the food from actually going to market in several jurisdictions where they have been approved by regulators: 1) governments have made political decisions not to allow them to be marketed, standing at Position 6; and 2) in jurisdictions where labeling is mandatory, retailers have refused to stock products containing food from GMOs, to avoid the controversy protestors would bring. Neither of those has anything to do with science and everything to do with politics. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That is a generalization true for few countries. The reverse is actually true in Australia. The government here pushes GMOs for political reasons (pressure from the U.S. government and biotech companies) while the opposition has been primarily by farmers on economic and environmental grounds. Australia exports around 60% of the food we grow, mainly to countries who pay a premium for both organic and GMO free produce. Contamination has been a big problem that has severely impacted on many farmers incomes. The excessively high water requirements for GM cotton (modification is the only reason it can be grown here at all) in New South Wales has contributed to water restrictions for communities as far as Adelaide, 1500 km from the cotton farms which doesn't win any friends. Retailers refuse to stock GM products not because of any controversies, but because they do not sell well. They do not sell because they hurt the local farmers which has a big influence on purchasing in Australia where organic produce is increasing it's market share every year at the expense of normal produce let alone GM. Apart from financial benefits for biotech companies there are no economic benefits to the public for having GMOs here yet they are forced on us as a condition of our trade agreements with the U.S. Wayne (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note but a) this is all off topic of the schema above and b) to be honest, this sounds like a lot of spin. The only GM crops grown in Australia are canola and cotton; they have been modified for herbicide resistance or to produce Bt. I don't know what you mean by "the only reason cotton can be grown here at all is because of the genetic modification" - that makes no sense. And cotton has been grown in Australia since 1788. I do know that there has been litigation in Australia from farmers who grow conventional canola suing neighbors who are growing GM canola, over contamination of the non-GM canola with GM. Controversy, for sure. But not wholesale rejection by farmers. Australian regulators have approved those two crops and more, but Australia's system give state governments a lot of power as to whether to allow them to grown (like the EU does with member states) and as in Europe, political considerations have made things move slowly. Which sounds like it makes you happy. Biotech advocacy groups in Australia say that where they have been allowed to be sold and grown, biotech crops have been rapidly adopted by farmers. I don't know of any data that indicates that farmers are rejected GM crops - would be interested in data you have that backs up those claims. As for retailers, the data I have seen that retailers don't even stock food with labels, where labels are mandatory, not because people don't buy them - they never stock them to begin with because they are afraid of protestors raising a ruckus and scaring off customers. So I am very curious about the data you have to support anything that you wrote above. As mentioned above, we should create a new section for the situation in Australia if you want to keep discussing this. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Cotton is not a food

The title of this article is 'Genetically modified food controversies'. Cotton is not a food, yet there are currently some 45 uses of the word cotton spread throughout the article. the section #India is almost exclusively about cotton.

It seems to me that the vast majority of references to cotton, and other non-food transgenics, should be purged out of this article to a new article 'Genetically modified non-food controversies', or to an appropriate existing article.

The presence of so many references to cotton only serves to cloud (could this be deliberate?) what is already an extremely cloudy subject.

This article has 'food' in the title for a reason: transgenic food products may affect human health; it is far less likely that transgenic cotton will do so.

Cricobr (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! The accusations you make, however, are most unwelcome, and you are incorrect about cotton and food. Cottonseed from cotton is used for oil which is used for cooking oil and is in many processed/prepared foods. It is true that there is vanishingly little protein or DNA from the genetic modification in the oil, which is highly purified lipids, but nonetheless products from GM cotton are in the food supply. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Milo from Catch 22 agrees =) a13ean (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I would consider expanding the scope a little bit by changing food to crops. Nothing in the body needs to be changed and I don't think we go into animals produced for food (I don't think any are yet - althougth the salmon can't be far away). Maybe there is a nother word that can be used to cover things like Amflora and AquAdvantage salmon. Perhaps organisms, although then you have to include the insulin producing bacteria. AIRcorn (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional material

some aspects that need to fleshed out in the lead, which are currently missing from the article entirely, but which might help with clarifying this matter, include the precautionary principle, the Cartagena Protocol and the Codex Alimentarius. We should note that European regulation is markedly different from the US - where the industry is essentially self-regulating and has done most of the safety testing itself. Europe has traditionally erred on the side of caution and upholds a case-by-case approach. With regard to the American situation the SAGE A-Z on Green Culture offers a succinct overview:

"In 1992, the FDA adopted a policy whereby GE foods were presumed 'generally recognized as safe'. Similarly, the FAO and the WHO subscribed to the concept of substantial equivalence, which regards GE food products to be as safe as their conventional counterparts. Safety resting through the FDA has been documented by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest(CSPI) and others to he inadequate. Studies noted that biotechnology companies frequently have not released the requested information, there were undetected errors in technical data, and the FDA had a lack of necessary authority in the review and regulation of GE research and crops. Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have improved with the global consensus forwarded by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. These principles dictate a pre-market assessment, performed on a case-by-case basis, which includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects. However, peer-reviewed studies found that despite these guidelines, risk assessment of GE foods has still not followed a defined prototype."

The matter of the original 1992 FDA ruling (which Monsanto was involved in) is the root of much of the suspicion and skepticism (especially in Europe) surrounding the food safety issue, and this is not helped by claims (attributed to James Maryanski) that the decision to avoid applying a GMO specific regulatory regime was motivated by politics rather than science. US economic interest, big business, and political careerism has muddied this debate from the very beginning, made worse by the fact that the bio-tech sector in the US was regulating itself and carrying out most of the testing for well over a decade after the introduction of GMO food crops. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

About [1] and [2], I'd like to explain. First, I think that the edits were rather bold in the WP:BRD sense, in the context of the ongoing discussions here, and might be better subject to further discussion. But more specifically, I'm concerned that it is WP:SYNTH to go from what it says in the first source, the one from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, to saying, sourced to the subsequent sources such as the AAAS, that "Studies adhering to the principal of substantial equivalence are central to the broad scientific consensus that...". Assigning that role to the analyses of studies about GMO safety seems to me to be an editorial opinion, but I'd welcome hearing from other editors about these questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree this is WP:SYNTH. Unless there is reliable source that links these two together, it shouldn't be there. I also don't know why changes were made when there is an ongoing RfC on the issue and the overwhelming position among editors so far is to keep the statements as is. BlackHades (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi, I think a lot of the negative reaction by other editors to your useful content suggestion, is based on the unfortunate justification you provide above. I am sorry that you chose to try to support your content addition with this kind of politically charged discussion, using unacceptable sources like the World According to Monsanto (which, while it contains some useful reporting, fails NPOV, and should not be used to support any factual content in Wikipedia... an issue which I would be happy to discuss here or elsewhere if you are interested.) In terms of swiftly and smoothly winning consensus, this was unwise... in terms of sparking confrontation, very successful, as per the continuing thread below. Tactically, it was probably unwise to add this justification in the midst of an actual RfC discussion section, which I think also led to negative reactions. I would be open to you cutting this discussion and pasting it below, out of the RfC, which would take away one thing distracting from the suggested content itself and would help the RfC remain focused. I assume the other commenting editors wouldn't mind. As for taking away other distractions from the content, if you want to somehow retract the justification or state that the justification you provide above is irrelevant (which it is, with respect to how we consider content) that would remove other distractions from the content itself, which as I have said, I find useful. Or not... I am just trying to defuse so we can move toward consensus. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

recent addition by semi, prefacing the consensus statement

Continued from #Additional material, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I think that the content added by semi to lede, prior to the prefacing the consensus statement is good and useful -- after it was revised a few times - and is not WP:SYN. Whether or not to keep this content is a separate discussion from the RfC above which is focused on the consensus statement, so I wanted to open a new section on it. Text as it ended up before last deletion is here:

Safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies is based in part on evaluation of whether the food is "substantially equivalent" to non-genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption.(ref name=OECD)"Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles" (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved 21 June 2009.(/ref)

To say a bit more, I think it is useful because it provides more context as to how scientists arrive at the consensus, and provides a useful link to the regulatory article - IMO opponents of GMOs are generally ignorant of the regulatory work that is done. The claim that it is WP:SYN is hard to deal with - but in my view it is simply true that the safety claim is ultimately a regulatory one, and that it is just common sense to provide this brief explanation. I may be missing something and am open to hearing that. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The statement itself is perfectly reasonable, but it just shouldn't be grouped together with the "broad consensus" statement that is currently in discussion in RfC. I believe this is the concern Tryptofish was raising, and I would agree here. None of the sources cited for the "broad consensus" statement is in a way that directly links it with substantial equivalence. If the discussion of substantial equivalence was in its own separate paragraph in the lead, I don't think it would be an issue. BlackHades (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason why this would be included in the lead. I can not assess the source because the link does not work, IRWolfie- (talk)

18:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that Jytdog, "gets" what I am trying to do here because what the fervent "anti-fringe" activists are missing is that this lone, isolated, single statement, does not serve the purposes of our lead, and it is being presented as a means of suggesting that all this talk of "controversy" is sheer folly; when it clearly isn't, because we have an article dedicated to it. I see double standards here. Why is there an avoidance of mentioning how this consensus was arrived at, including the means that were employed in getting there? No reason has been offered as to why the topics mentioned aboveshould be excluded from the article, and consequentially, the lead. It's not a matter of denying consensus exists, it's a question of properly explaining what this is all about to our readers (so they can better understand the topic). Semitransgenic _talk. 18:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You appear to acknowledge that the synthesis was intended? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Semitransgenic _talk. 19:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie is correct. You basically just admitted here you were doing synthesis. BlackHades (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Semitransgenic _talk. 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm ambivalent about the question. My concern about SYNTH was actually about an earlier version of the language, and as noted by Jytdog, the page's edit history shows some edits I made (along with a revision made by Semitransgenic in response to my earlier comments) that addressed my earlier concerns to my satisfaction. The issue at this point, and I do think that BlackHades raises a valid point about it, is whether having the sentence about substantial equivalence right before the sentence about the scientific consensus implies some original research by way of juxtaposition: suggesting that substantial equivalence is background information for the subsequent source material, when maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. Would a solution be, sort of per IRWolfie, to have something about substantial equivalence lower on the page, but not here? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

a "solution" that ignores the chronology of how safety testing and the science associated with it developed (something that continues to change/improve as GE technology evolves) is not going to improve the article, and still no mention of the Cartagena Protocol or regional differences in regulation policy. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Semi... The article covers all these controversies. There are a lot of legitimate controversies about GM crops and about food from GMOs, and there some illegitimate (!) ones, from a scientific perspective. When I say "legitimate" I mean that there are real issues on both sides and reasonable people can disagree. There are also a few issues where there is no legit scientific controversy -- two of them are whether currently marketed food from GMOs is relatively safe, and another is whether bt is responsible for bee colony collapse disorder. The article discusses those two, but not as though there is more than one side with scientific validity. On both, the article makes it clear that there is a scientific consensus on the issue, and explains the FRINGE positions against the consensus. This is as I understand it how Wikipedia treats controversies.... I do think your intro to the food safety statement is helpful. Scientific consensus supports investigating substantial equivalence as a starting point for considering safety. I don't think it is a bad thing to preface the foods safety question with an explanation of SE. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

the isolated sentence on scientific consensus in the lead is problematic not because of what it says, it's problematic because it lacks sufficient contextualisation when it's clear that some could be provided, it looks like it's there to make a point, not to help our readers understand where this statement actually comes from. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Then you should be using the citations that already exists to expand on the scientific consensus statement. Or find another source that discusses scientific consensus. Not try to do synthesis yourself. BlackHades (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

just in case people here think I'm making shit up for the hell of it, from Safety assessment of genetically modified food crops (2011):

Previous studies employed for assessing the safety of chemical additives used in food industry, involved testing single chemical components. But this is not feasible for testing GM foods. Therefore, an alternative approach was required for the safety assessment of GM foods. First food safety assessment report(14) described comparative approach and has laid the basis
for later safety evaluation strategies. This led to the development of the concept of substantial equivalence. Substantial equivalence (SE) emphasizes that safety assessment is not a parameter which can be evaluated on an absolute scale. Instead it measures whether the GM food is safe as its traditional counterpart if such(55) counterpart exists or to an earlier approved GM variety (15). SE analysis includes three levels - complete, partial and not at all15. Complete - substantially equivalent i.e. the GM food is similar to the native counterpart, partial - substantially equivalent except for the inserted gene and ‘not at all’ means that the GM food is not at all equivalent to its counterpart and a step by step evaluation of the transgenic food is mandatory (15,16). GM and non-GM counterpart used for the comparative studies should be subjected to similar environmental conditions to avoid genotypic and phenotypic differences not related to the transformation process. The non-GM counterpart should be non-transgenic, isogenic line to the GM line. Comparative studies should take into account agronomic, morphological, genetic and compositional aspects in order to make an objective assessment. Further, attention should be paid to the choice of comparator, the design of field trials, and statistical analysis of the generated data in order to obtain authentic results.
Safety assessment strategies involve an integrated, case-by-case approach to be used in the allergenicity assessment of GM foods. The safety evaluation protocols mainly focus on, whether the original source of the GM food protein is allergenic or the GM food protein is similar to any known or reported allergens and lastly whether the GM food protein can remain intact after digestion. Additional testing includes the use of specific immunological methods or animal models, for further evaluation. GM foods are assessed on the basis of several guidelines issued by international scientific organizations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). With the advancements in the field of science and technology new risk assessment techniques are
evolving.

scientific consensus didn't arrive out of thin air. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Substantial equivalence is the starting point on the assessment of the safety of GM food. It is not the end point regarding safety and approval of GM food and nowhere in your source does it even discuss the broad scientific consensus in question. You essentially already admitted you were going for synthesis above by trying to link it with "broad scientific consensus". BlackHades (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Semitransgenic _talk. 20:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Uncited paper in an obscure and unrelated journal. Not sure if the journal satisfies MEDRS, although its in that area. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be your standard reply about inconvenient sources... The Banner talk 21:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

material is hardly controversial, it's a succinct overview, adequate for the scope the discussion here, there are dozens of similar summaries out there, I'm sure you can find a better one without much effort, it's also helpful in demonstrating an irrational resistance to improvement that has taken hold here. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Resume discussion when you have a more reliable source. It is not irrational to reject an uncited source from an obscure and apparently unreliable journal, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Excessively large copy pastes

Assuring the safety of genetically modiﬁed (GM) foods: the importance of an holistic,integrative approach

"The food safety considerations for GM crops are basically the same as those arising from conventionally bred crops, very few
of which have been subject to any testing yet are generally regarded as being safe to eat. In contrast a rigorous safety testing paradigm has been developed for GM crops, which utilises a systematic, stepwise and holistic approach. The resultant science based process, focuses on a classical evaluation of the toxic potential of the introduced novel trait and the wholesomeness of the transformed crop. In addition, detailed consideration is given to the history and safe use of the parent crop as well as that of the gene donor. The overall safety evaluation is conducted under the concept known as substantial equivalence which is enshrined in all international crop biotechnology guidelines. This provides the framework for a comparative approach to identify the similarities and differences between the GM product and its comparator which has a known history of safe use. By building a detailed proﬁle on each step in the transformation process, from parent to new crop, and by thoroughly evaluating the signiﬁcance from a safety perspective, of any differences that may be detected, a very comprehensive matrix of information is constructed which enables the conclusion as to whether the GM crop, derived food or feed is as safe as its traditional counterpart. Using this approach in the evaluation of more than 50 GM crops which have been approved worldwide, the conclusion has been that foods and feeds derived from genetically modiﬁed crops are as safe and nutritious as those derived from traditional crops."

"The concept of SE continues to be recognised by scientiﬁc and regulatory experts as the most appropriate foundation for the assessment of the safety of foods from crops developed via biotechnology (FAO/WHO, 2000). Substantial equivalence achieves a central public health objective, which is the assurance that no undeclared or unexpected alterations in dietary nutrients, antinutrients, toxins or allergens are introduced into the food or feed supply. In addition, by sampling the biochemistry through compositional analysis of food, feed or processed fractions derived from genetically modiﬁed crops in comparison to traditional crops, unexpected effects due to genetic insertions (i.e. pleiotropy) are assessed in depth. In combination with speciﬁc safety evaluations of introduced traits, it can be assured that foods, feeds or processed fractions derived from genetically modiﬁed crops are as safe and nutritious as their traditional counterparts."

World Health Organisation background to role of SE

2. History of WHO activities
2.1 Development of concepts and recommendations Since the beginning of the 1990´s WHO has been involved in the development of strategies for assessing the safety of genetically modified foods. In cooperation with FAO, several expert consultations have been convened which resulted in the elaboration of basic principles and recommendations. WHO/FAO were among the first organizations to elaborate the general principles underlying the safety assessment of foods produced by using recombinant DNA techniques [1]. The principle of "substantial equivalence" formulated by OECD in 1993 [7] turned out to be a key element of the safety assessment procedure. This concept is used to identify similarities and differences between the GM food and a comparator with a history of safe use which3 subsequently guides the safety assessment process. A major purpose of the expert consultations convened by WHO/FAO was to develop recommendations and guidance for the practical application of this approach [3-5]. In addition, the consultations addressed issues considered to be unique to genetic engineering, e.g. the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes [2] or the allergenicity of the additionally expressed proteins [6]. 2.2 Incorporation into regulatory guidelines There are different philosophies worldwide regarding the need for additional regulatory oversight on GM foods going beyond the requirements of laws existing for traditional foods. This is reflected in the various approaches ranging from voluntary consultations (U.S.) over notification requirements (Canada) to mandatory authorization procedures requested in a specific regulation (EU). Nevertheless, a general consensus has been developed on the major scientific principles underlying the safety assessment of GM foods. Together with documents developed by other bodies, e.g. OECD [8], IFBC [9], or ILSI [10], the principles elaborated by WHO/FAO formed the basis for guidelines developed by national authorities (e.g. [11]). 2.3 Standard setting via FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission WHO plays a central role in the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an intergovernmental body set up to establish international standards on foods. According to a medium-term plan (1998- 2002), internationally agreed standards for the safety assessment of foods derived from genetically modified organisms are being developed. The scientific justification of such standards is an essential prerequisite. 2.4 Codex Committee on Food Labelling Labelling has been one of the major issues in public debates on the application of genetic engineering in food production. It must be differentiated between labelling based on potential safety issues (e.g. substantial differences in composition, presence of an allergenic protein) and labelling based on the sole "right of the consumer on information". The Codex Committee on Food Labelling is presently discussing recommendations on labelling of GM foods which are to be included in the Codex General Standards for the Labelling of Pre-Packaged Foods. 3. Current situation regarding safety assessment of GM foods The concept of “substantial equivalence", one of the key elements, proved to be suitable for the safety assessment of the first generation of genetically modified crops. Foods consisting of or containing GMO belong to the best analyzed foods we know. So far there are no documented reports on adverse effects on humans resulting from the consumption of a food produced by means of application of recombinant DNA techniques. Even the often cited detection of the Brazil nut allergen in GM soybean [12] or the recently debated results obtained from GM insect-resistant potatoes expressing a lectin [13] actually confirm the usefulness of the approach recommended for safety assessment at the pre-market stage.

Semitransgenic _talk. 21:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please fix the link to the original source under discussion? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wolfie... I wonder why the link is not working for you. It works for me on my home computer, where I have no special network access. But here it is http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/biotrack/41036698.pdf Maybe it is your browser? Sorry it took so long to respond to your request. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional note, if you meant the Sage A-Z link, I couldn't make that work either - I requested clarification from Semi below.. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, it is copyright infringement to paste very large pieces of text from other sources. Because something is freely available on a website, does not imply we have any permission to paste it here beyond what we can through free use. Content on website is all rights reserved unless explicitly stated otherwise. Its also disruptive to the flow of a conversation. Why do people have issues with simply pointing to page numbers. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi, in your original posting up in "additional material" you have a link to the Sage A-Z source.. the link you provided doesn't work http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/greenculture/SAGE.xmlgive If I take the "give" off, I end up at an index page http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/greenculture/SAGE.xml but I could not find what entry you took that quote from. Would you please specify? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

can you please simply look at google books if you want to find the entry, the book is there. Semitransgenic _talk. 16:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

i would be happy to, but I cannot figure which entry it is. I checked on the Sage website under all the entries I could think of ("FDA", "US regulation", "regulation" etc etc) and I could not find the quote. You don't say what the entry is, that you are quoting from... that is why I asked. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi, in your original posting under "additional material", I don't understand where you are getting the idea, that the food safety regulatory review in the EU is different than in the US. Can you please provide a source that supports that? I am talking specifically about the food safety regulatory review part.. there is definitely a different political process subsequent to the regulatory review, and because there are labeling there are also source-tracing requirements, which in turn mean that environmental review and requirements are different too. So just the food safety review part. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@jytdog - The U.S. did NOT sign up to the Cartagena Protocol, so unlike Europe, it does not adhere to the precautionary principle.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce states this explicitly on its website:

"The precautionary principle has been explicitly incorporated into various laws and regulations in the European Union and various international bodies. In the United States, radical environmentalists are pushing for its adoption as a basis for regulating biotechnology, food and drug safety, environmental protection, and pesticide use.

U.S. Chamber Strategy

Support a science-based approach to risk management, where risk is assessed based on scientifically sound and technically rigorous standards.
Oppose the domestic and international adoption of the precautionary principle as a basis for regulatory decision making.
Educate consumers, businesses, and federal policymakers about the implications of the precautionary principle."

Here, for example, is one of many articles that addresses the precautionary principle in the context of of food safety.

recent addition by semi, prefacing the consensus statement

Continued from #Additional material, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I think that the content added by semi to lede, prior to the prefacing the consensus statement is good and useful -- after it was revised a few times - and is not WP:SYN. Whether or not to keep this content is a separate discussion from the RfC above which is focused on the consensus statement, so I wanted to open a new section on it. Text as it ended up before last deletion is here:

Safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies is based in part on evaluation of whether the food is "substantially equivalent" to non-genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption.(ref name=OECD)"Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles" (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved 21 June 2009.(/ref)

To say a bit more, I think it is useful because it provides more context as to how scientists arrive at the consensus, and provides a useful link to the regulatory article - IMO opponents of GMOs are generally ignorant of the regulatory work that is done. The claim that it is WP:SYN is hard to deal with - but in my view it is simply true that the safety claim is ultimately a regulatory one, and that it is just common sense to provide this brief explanation. I may be missing something and am open to hearing that. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The statement itself is perfectly reasonable, but it just shouldn't be grouped together with the "broad consensus" statement that is currently in discussion in RfC. I believe this is the concern Tryptofish was raising, and I would agree here. None of the sources cited for the "broad consensus" statement is in a way that directly links it with substantial equivalence. If the discussion of substantial equivalence was in its own separate paragraph in the lead, I don't think it would be an issue. BlackHades (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason why this would be included in the lead. I can not assess the source because the link does not work, IRWolfie- (talk)

18:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that Jytdog, "gets" what I am trying to do here because what the fervent "anti-fringe" activists are missing is that this lone, isolated, single statement, does not serve the purposes of our lead, and it is being presented as a means of suggesting that all this talk of "controversy" is sheer folly; when it clearly isn't, because we have an article dedicated to it. I see double standards here. Why is there an avoidance of mentioning how this consensus was arrived at, including the means that were employed in getting there? No reason has been offered as to why the topics mentioned aboveshould be excluded from the article, and consequentially, the lead. It's not a matter of denying consensus exists, it's a question of properly explaining what this is all about to our readers (so they can better understand the topic). Semitransgenic _talk. 18:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You appear to acknowledge that the synthesis was intended? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Semitransgenic _talk. 19:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie is correct. You basically just admitted here you were doing synthesis. BlackHades (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Semitransgenic _talk. 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm ambivalent about the question. My concern about SYNTH was actually about an earlier version of the language, and as noted by Jytdog, the page's edit history shows some edits I made (along with a revision made by Semitransgenic in response to my earlier comments) that addressed my earlier concerns to my satisfaction. The issue at this point, and I do think that BlackHades raises a valid point about it, is whether having the sentence about substantial equivalence right before the sentence about the scientific consensus implies some original research by way of juxtaposition: suggesting that substantial equivalence is background information for the subsequent source material, when maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. Would a solution be, sort of per IRWolfie, to have something about substantial equivalence lower on the page, but not here? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

a "solution" that ignores the chronology of how safety testing and the science associated with it developed (something that continues to change/improve as GE technology evolves) is not going to improve the article, and still no mention of the Cartagena Protocol or regional differences in regulation policy. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Semi... The article covers all these controversies. There are a lot of legitimate controversies about GM crops and about food from GMOs, and there some illegitimate (!) ones, from a scientific perspective. When I say "legitimate" I mean that there are real issues on both sides and reasonable people can disagree. There are also a few issues where there is no legit scientific controversy -- two of them are whether currently marketed food from GMOs is relatively safe, and another is whether bt is responsible for bee colony collapse disorder. The article discusses those two, but not as though there is more than one side with scientific validity. On both, the article makes it clear that there is a scientific consensus on the issue, and explains the FRINGE positions against the consensus. This is as I understand it how Wikipedia treats controversies.... I do think your intro to the food safety statement is helpful. Scientific consensus supports investigating substantial equivalence as a starting point for considering safety. I don't think it is a bad thing to preface the foods safety question with an explanation of SE. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

the isolated sentence on scientific consensus in the lead is problematic not because of what it says, it's problematic because it lacks sufficient contextualisation when it's clear that some could be provided, it looks like it's there to make a point, not to help our readers understand where this statement actually comes from. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Then you should be using the citations that already exists to expand on the scientific consensus statement. Or find another source that discusses scientific consensus. Not try to do synthesis yourself. BlackHades (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

just in case people here think I'm making shit up for the hell of it, from Safety assessment of genetically modified food crops (2011):

Previous studies employed for assessing the safety of chemical additives used in food industry, involved testing single chemical components. But this is not feasible for testing GM foods. Therefore, an alternative approach was required for the safety assessment of GM foods. First food safety assessment report(14) described comparative approach and has laid the basis
for later safety evaluation strategies. This led to the development of the concept of substantial equivalence. Substantial equivalence (SE) emphasizes that safety assessment is not a parameter which can be evaluated on an absolute scale. Instead it measures whether the GM food is safe as its traditional counterpart if such(55) counterpart exists or to an earlier approved GM variety (15). SE analysis includes three levels - complete, partial and not at all15. Complete - substantially equivalent i.e. the GM food is similar to the native counterpart, partial - substantially equivalent except for the inserted gene and ‘not at all’ means that the GM food is not at all equivalent to its counterpart and a step by step evaluation of the transgenic food is mandatory (15,16). GM and non-GM counterpart used for the comparative studies should be subjected to similar environmental conditions to avoid genotypic and phenotypic differences not related to the transformation process. The non-GM counterpart should be non-transgenic, isogenic line to the GM line. Comparative studies should take into account agronomic, morphological, genetic and compositional aspects in order to make an objective assessment. Further, attention should be paid to the choice of comparator, the design of field trials, and statistical analysis of the generated data in order to obtain authentic results.
Safety assessment strategies involve an integrated, case-by-case approach to be used in the allergenicity assessment of GM foods. The safety evaluation protocols mainly focus on, whether the original source of the GM food protein is allergenic or the GM food protein is similar to any known or reported allergens and lastly whether the GM food protein can remain intact after digestion. Additional testing includes the use of specific immunological methods or animal models, for further evaluation. GM foods are assessed on the basis of several guidelines issued by international scientific organizations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). With the advancements in the field of science and technology new risk assessment techniques are
evolving.

scientific consensus didn't arrive out of thin air. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Substantial equivalence is the starting point on the assessment of the safety of GM food. It is not the end point regarding safety and approval of GM food and nowhere in your source does it even discuss the broad scientific consensus in question. You essentially already admitted you were going for synthesis above by trying to link it with "broad scientific consensus". BlackHades (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Semitransgenic _talk. 20:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Uncited paper in an obscure and unrelated journal. Not sure if the journal satisfies MEDRS, although its in that area. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be your standard reply about inconvenient sources... The Banner talk 21:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

material is hardly controversial, it's a succinct overview, adequate for the scope the discussion here, there are dozens of similar summaries out there, I'm sure you can find a better one without much effort, it's also helpful in demonstrating an irrational resistance to improvement that has taken hold here. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Resume discussion when you have a more reliable source. It is not irrational to reject an uncited source from an obscure and apparently unreliable journal, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Excessively large copy pastes

Assuring the safety of genetically modiﬁed (GM) foods: the importance of an holistic,integrative approach

"The food safety considerations for GM crops are basically the same as those arising from conventionally bred crops, very few
of which have been subject to any testing yet are generally regarded as being safe to eat. In contrast a rigorous safety testing paradigm has been developed for GM crops, which utilises a systematic, stepwise and holistic approach. The resultant science based process, focuses on a classical evaluation of the toxic potential of the introduced novel trait and the wholesomeness of the transformed crop. In addition, detailed consideration is given to the history and safe use of the parent crop as well as that of the gene donor. The overall safety evaluation is conducted under the concept known as substantial equivalence which is enshrined in all international crop biotechnology guidelines. This provides the framework for a comparative approach to identify the similarities and differences between the GM product and its comparator which has a known history of safe use. By building a detailed proﬁle on each step in the transformation process, from parent to new crop, and by thoroughly evaluating the signiﬁcance from a safety perspective, of any differences that may be detected, a very comprehensive matrix of information is constructed which enables the conclusion as to whether the GM crop, derived food or feed is as safe as its traditional counterpart. Using this approach in the evaluation of more than 50 GM crops which have been approved worldwide, the conclusion has been that foods and feeds derived from genetically modiﬁed crops are as safe and nutritious as those derived from traditional crops."

"The concept of SE continues to be recognised by scientiﬁc and regulatory experts as the most appropriate foundation for the assessment of the safety of foods from crops developed via biotechnology (FAO/WHO, 2000). Substantial equivalence achieves a central public health objective, which is the assurance that no undeclared or unexpected alterations in dietary nutrients, antinutrients, toxins or allergens are introduced into the food or feed supply. In addition, by sampling the biochemistry through compositional analysis of food, feed or processed fractions derived from genetically modiﬁed crops in comparison to traditional crops, unexpected effects due to genetic insertions (i.e. pleiotropy) are assessed in depth. In combination with speciﬁc safety evaluations of introduced traits, it can be assured that foods, feeds or processed fractions derived from genetically modiﬁed crops are as safe and nutritious as their traditional counterparts."

World Health Organisation background to role of SE

2. History of WHO activities
2.1 Development of concepts and recommendations Since the beginning of the 1990´s WHO has been involved in the development of strategies for assessing the safety of genetically modified foods. In cooperation with FAO, several expert consultations have been convened which resulted in the elaboration of basic principles and recommendations. WHO/FAO were among the first organizations to elaborate the general principles underlying the safety assessment of foods produced by using recombinant DNA techniques [1]. The principle of "substantial equivalence" formulated by OECD in 1993 [7] turned out to be a key element of the safety assessment procedure. This concept is used to identify similarities and differences between the GM food and a comparator with a history of safe use which3 subsequently guides the safety assessment process. A major purpose of the expert consultations convened by WHO/FAO was to develop recommendations and guidance for the practical application of this approach [3-5]. In addition, the consultations addressed issues considered to be unique to genetic engineering, e.g. the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes [2] or the allergenicity of the additionally expressed proteins [6]. 2.2 Incorporation into regulatory guidelines There are different philosophies worldwide regarding the need for additional regulatory oversight on GM foods going beyond the requirements of laws existing for traditional foods. This is reflected in the various approaches ranging from voluntary consultations (U.S.) over notification requirements (Canada) to mandatory authorization procedures requested in a specific regulation (EU). Nevertheless, a general consensus has been developed on the major scientific principles underlying the safety assessment of GM foods. Together with documents developed by other bodies, e.g. OECD [8], IFBC [9], or ILSI [10], the principles elaborated by WHO/FAO formed the basis for guidelines developed by national authorities (e.g. [11]). 2.3 Standard setting via FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission WHO plays a central role in the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an intergovernmental body set up to establish international standards on foods. According to a medium-term plan (1998- 2002), internationally agreed standards for the safety assessment of foods derived from genetically modified organisms are being developed. The scientific justification of such standards is an essential prerequisite. 2.4 Codex Committee on Food Labelling Labelling has been one of the major issues in public debates on the application of genetic engineering in food production. It must be differentiated between labelling based on potential safety issues (e.g. substantial differences in composition, presence of an allergenic protein) and labelling based on the sole "right of the consumer on information". The Codex Committee on Food Labelling is presently discussing recommendations on labelling of GM foods which are to be included in the Codex General Standards for the Labelling of Pre-Packaged Foods. 3. Current situation regarding safety assessment of GM foods The concept of “substantial equivalence", one of the key elements, proved to be suitable for the safety assessment of the first generation of genetically modified crops. Foods consisting of or containing GMO belong to the best analyzed foods we know. So far there are no documented reports on adverse effects on humans resulting from the consumption of a food produced by means of application of recombinant DNA techniques. Even the often cited detection of the Brazil nut allergen in GM soybean [12] or the recently debated results obtained from GM insect-resistant potatoes expressing a lectin [13] actually confirm the usefulness of the approach recommended for safety assessment at the pre-market stage.

Semitransgenic _talk. 21:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please fix the link to the original source under discussion? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wolfie... I wonder why the link is not working for you. It works for me on my home computer, where I have no special network access. But here it is http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/biotrack/41036698.pdf Maybe it is your browser? Sorry it took so long to respond to your request. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional note, if you meant the Sage A-Z link, I couldn't make that work either - I requested clarification from Semi below.. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, it is copyright infringement to paste very large pieces of text from other sources. Because something is freely available on a website, does not imply we have any permission to paste it here beyond what we can through free use. Content on website is all rights reserved unless explicitly stated otherwise. Its also disruptive to the flow of a conversation. Why do people have issues with simply pointing to page numbers. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi, in your original posting up in "additional material" you have a link to the Sage A-Z source.. the link you provided doesn't work http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/greenculture/SAGE.xmlgive If I take the "give" off, I end up at an index page http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/greenculture/SAGE.xml but I could not find what entry you took that quote from. Would you please specify? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

can you please simply look at google books if you want to find the entry, the book is there. Semitransgenic _talk. 16:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

i would be happy to, but I cannot figure which entry it is. I checked on the Sage website under all the entries I could think of ("FDA", "US regulation", "regulation" etc etc) and I could not find the quote. You don't say what the entry is, that you are quoting from... that is why I asked. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi, in your original posting under "additional material", I don't understand where you are getting the idea, that the food safety regulatory review in the EU is different than in the US. Can you please provide a source that supports that? I am talking specifically about the food safety regulatory review part.. there is definitely a different political process subsequent to the regulatory review, and because there are labeling there are also source-tracing requirements, which in turn mean that environmental review and requirements are different too. So just the food safety review part. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@jytdog - The U.S. did NOT sign up to the Cartagena Protocol, so unlike Europe, it does not adhere to the precautionary principle.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce states this explicitly on its website:

"The precautionary principle has been explicitly incorporated into various laws and regulations in the European Union and various international bodies. In the United States, radical environmentalists are pushing for its adoption as a basis for regulating biotechnology, food and drug safety, environmental protection, and pesticide use.

U.S. Chamber Strategy

Support a science-based approach to risk management, where risk is assessed based on scientifically sound and technically rigorous standards.
Oppose the domestic and international adoption of the precautionary principle as a basis for regulatory decision making.
Educate consumers, businesses, and federal policymakers about the implications of the precautionary principle."

Here, for example, is one of many articles that addresses the precautionary principle in the context of of food safety.

Taco bell GMO Recall

First section

Hi canoe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Health: Action by Kraft is the first involving genetically altered food. The grain contains a pest repellent."^[1] My bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
"All other information indicated that Cry9C would not pose any other types of risks to human health or the environment."^[2] My bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
"7. Has Health Canada put in place an independent and scientific monitoring of the short and long term human health effects of the Cry9C protein contained in the StarLink corn which illegally entered to the Canadian food chain? If yes, what is the dollars amount spent on this by Health Canada and how many person-day are allocated on these programs and have been spent or will be spent? If not, are there any plan to do so, when and how much resources will be spent?"^[3] My bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
"While the health effects of StarLink are still unsettled, many worry that the government remains unprepared to deal with unexpected health problems from genetically engineered crops, especially those now being field-tested to mass-produce medicines, vaccines or industrial chemicals."^[4] My bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
StarLink health study by the CDC.^[5]--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
"This was important for legal compliance, public health, and economic reasons.^[6]. My bold and no mention of environment.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's wrap up

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

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

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

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

References

[1] ttp://articles.latimes.com/2000/sep/23/news/mn-25314

[2] ttp://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm

[3] ttp://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/english/pet_034a_e_28736.html

[4] ttp://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/ge_corn_starlink.cfm

[5] ttp://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9cReport/

[6] ttp://rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-RPT-StarLink.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]