Talk:Genetically modified crops/Archive 1

Untitled
Hi I have been working on the Genetically modified food article and found it unwieldy because so much of it dealt with agricultural issues, which are quite different from food issues. For example, whether the amount of herbicide used has gone up or down since the advent of GM crop farming, is more or less irrelevant to food per se. I found that there was a page called Genetically Modified Crops which was really what was needed for much of the content, but it was blank and redirected to Genetically Modified Food. I took away the redirect, and performed a split to take out the agricultural content from the GM Food article. When I was finished, I stumbled on the already existing, but (in my view) poorly named, Genetically modified plant article. Much of that article also deals with agricultural issues. Let's combine these two so that we have the agricultural stuff in one place and the food stuff in another place. Tidy! Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the merger as there was no immediate response and the content needed merging so I decided to be bold and just do it. Happy to discuss renaming the combined page or any other changes!Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Methods/Uses, actual and propsed
I am planning on redoing the methods subheading. I am planning on taking the Glyphosate resistance section out of the "Methods" subheading and adding it to the "Uses, actual and proposed" section. I also plan on taking out the subheading of "Types of Genetic Engineering" and simply adding it to the section of Methods, because they are essentially the same thing. If there is any information I get wrong, please correct my edit once it is up. 216.185.230.22 (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Long term Roundup herbicide or Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize extremely toxic & carcinogenic
Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS.

Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.

Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov;50(11):4221-31.

doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005.

Epub 2012 Sep 19.

Abstract

The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1ppb in water), were studied 2years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3-2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.

[PubMed - in process]

Full Free Text:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

--Ocdnctx (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Main discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies AIR corn (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"what feeds what we eat" section
So this section was introduced a while back, with content based on a review published in 2012. I have been uncomfortable with the section, content, and source since it was introduced. The section header itself doesn't fit with the others... the content in the section was taken almost verbatim (very close to copyvio) from probably the most speculative and cheerleader-y part of the source. And the source itself, comes pretty close to being POV cheerleading for more use of GM crops and contains unsubstantiated claims about animal feed from GM crops being healthier for animals, and about the GM crops themselves being more productive. This makes me uncomfortable using this as a source -- I think opponents of GM (which I am not) would not find this source very acceptable and I don't like to use sources that anybody can so easily attack. On the other hand it is a review, and people opposed to GM have not attacked it yet. In response to the section being tagged for expansion today (unclear to me what that editor actually wanted) I looked at the section/content/source again and reckoned that i could create a brief paragraph in the "business" section based on the source, hopefully not so cheerleader-y. So I did, and deleted the "what feeds what we eat" section. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

addition of content from Scientific American to lead
Today the following was added to the lead in this dif by User:AcademicReviewer. I reverted it in this dif with edit note "please don't load things into the Lead. Also please see Talk for quick discussion"

Scientific American reports on the controversy noting, "The vast majority of the research on genetically modified (GM) crops suggests that they are safe to eat and that they have the potential to feed millions of people worldwide who currently go hungry" while noting GM-supportive scientists are often overly dismissive in their rejections of counterclaims and concerns.(ref)The Truth about Genetically Modified Food, by David H. Freedman, Scientific American, August 26, 2013.(/ref)

So, first, nothing should be in the lead that is not in the body -- I know it is tempting to just quickly add stuff into the lead but this is an article with plenty of traffic, and is part of a suite of related articles that I have been trying to keep clean and organized as a set. If the content would be added it should go into the article section on controversy, here. However, as part of an overhaul of this suite of articles about a year, a group of editors working on these articles swept up information on controversies that had come to be repeated across all the articles, in a scattered, disorganized, and often contradictory way, and we put it in one article, and left a stub in each of the remaining articles, which you can see in the section linked to above. This approach has been stable for a good long while now. The cited Sci Am article is a great source, and I will add it to the Controversies article, along with your content, and note that I merged it from here. I hope this makes sense. Happy to discuss! Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Flavr Savr tomato
I believe this section of the article is in the incorrect spot. The main header of these smaller subheadings are the methods that are used to create genetically modified foods, and not the actual plants that were created. Therefore the heading should be in what way was the plant modified from its original state and not the name of the plant. I also believe the Flavr Savr Tomato should be added to the section regarding the different plant types that have been modified. I will be replacing the section of the tomato with more relevant information.TheJGGiant (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for opening this section! I think the reason that was there, was to give a specific example of one method, namely using RNAi.  The next section describes how roundup resistance was done - inserting a gene that expresses a variant of the endogenous protein.  I had wanted to include more examples too.  Do you see the logic? Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do see the logic in that. I was not against having the Flavr Savr tomato mentioned under the Methods section, I just believe that it shouldn't be the subheading title. I do think giving examples of what plants are targeted by certain genetic modification is a good idea though to make the article more "full circle" to how it is applied in real life.TheJGGiant (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for talking and for walking working! I see what you were doing - just add it to the big table.  And you are right, I think the modifications described there serve plenty well as examples.  I had been thinking it would be nice to have narrative as well as the table.  But the table alone is fine with me! Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC) (copyedit, sloppy mistake Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC))

Method's Section
Just a brief question about the main article that is hyperlinked at the top of the article. The "main article" that is used is simply another subheading of an article. I was wondering if anyone had an objection to changing the hyperlink to the article of Techniques of genetic engineering?TheJGGiant (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Uses, actual and proposed
I believe this section should be split up into two different sections, or at the very least be divided up so the proposed uses and the actual uses are easier to distinguish. Side note: I did change the capitalization in the title. TheJGGiant (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your change to the section headers goes against the Manual of Style, which says that section headers and articles should be sentence case, not title case. See here.  Please change it  and the other one you changed, back.  Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed this tonight Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not aware of this. Thanks for the info. TheJGGiant (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus
I think this article should receive the same treatment as the GM Food article. Scientific consensus should be referenced in the lead and the Controversy section.CFredkin (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Quick note on this - the scientific consensus on GM food has been discussed to death. The heart of the conversation is at the Talk page for the Genetically modified food controversies article; there was an RfC on the consensus statement that was closed in mid August of this year, which you can find here.Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of Montagu opinion piece as source
Today User:CFredkin introduced the following source, in this dif:

cite news | author=Marc Van Montagu | title=The Irrational Fear of GM Food | url=http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303680404579141741399966328 | newspaper=The Wall Street Journal | date=October 22, 2013 | accessdate=October 28, 2013

The article is by a university scientist and ag biotech pioneer, Marc Van Montagu, who founded Plant Genetic Systems. It is listed as an "opinion" piece by the WSJ, and in the piece, he advocates strongly for GM crops and describes their benefits. This is a great apologia but it is not a great source to use in Wikipedia, as Montagu makes no effort to provide both sides of the issue or to be neutral; according to this piece no reasonable risks exist. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy on either side of any issue, and any source that we use should be acceptable to all sides of an issue. That is why I replaced this with the NYT article that is there now. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

addition of a bunch of "balancing" stuff re health
Today User:71.184.226.11 added "balancing" negative content, supported by bunch of primary studies, in this dif, with edit note "It's not really fair to call it a "scientific consensus" when a trivial search pulls up numerous scientific studies showing the opposite opinion. Both sides need to be shown." I reverted. First of all, Wikipedia doesn't do "balance" and we don't do fair, we do WP:NPOV which is a very different thing, and calls on us to give appropriate WP:WEIGHT to various perspectives. There is a scientific consensus on this issue - currently marketed food from GMOs is as safe as food from conventional counterparts. There are WP:FRINGE perspectives that say otherwise, and that grab on to primary studies (see WP:MEDRS) and make far stronger conclusions based on them than the studies can bear. Saying that a "trivial search" pulls up lots of results and therefore the results must be true, is not how we do things on Wikipedia (and is a pretty terrible way to determine what is true or false in any case). Further, under WP:MEDRS primary studies a) should not be used at all and b) cannot be used to challenge consensus statements.

So.. I reverted in this dif with edit note " there has been a great deal - and i mean a LOT - of Talk about this, including an RfC, please see Talk". And I opened this discussion, here.Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, so User:71.184.226.11 just re-reverted in this dif with edit note "So removing references to scientific studies helps the situation how exactly?". Not following WP:BRD, not talking.

I did two things: I re-re-reverted in this dif with edit note " you are not coming to talk! please do not edit war. please come talk as per WP:BRD" and I left a message on this IP user's Talk page (first a welcome, with this dif and then tried to open a conversation about this and a warning against edit warring, in this dif.)  Hopefully the IP user will come and Talk. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

extent section
Today, in these difs, User:79.7.27.115 changed the table in the Extent section, from using "agricultural land" as a baseline, to "arable land", and changed the numbers in that column, and the percentages in the next column, accordingly. I think this is a good idea. I wanted to check the accuracy, and looked at the ref, and to my surprise it is weird - the actual ref looks like this: (ref}FAOSTAT(/ref). I looked to see where this came from.   I introduced this content into this article on Sept 3 2012 in this dif when I pulled in the chart from the Genetically modified organism article.    I searched the history of that article and found that this content and ref was introduced in this dif in that format, and nobody ever challenged or fixed it.  I am guessing that FAOSTAT is this page of the "faostat" website, the home page of which is here: http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/home/E

As I thought about this more and looked for sources, I could not find any single source that had the total arable land and the total GM crop land, and came up with percentages. This led me to realize that this table, as it was originally created, was a work of original research and that we cannot have it in Wikipedia. So I deleted the total arable land and percentages columns. If anybody finds a source that brings the total GM crop and total arable land together, and calculates percentages, then we can bring those two columns back in. I hope that makes sense to everybody. I did update the acreage planted with GM crops from the most recent ISAAA report. Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Haven't looked into this case in detail, but simply mathmatics is not considered original research. AIR corn (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh! thanks aircorn!  do you think the "percent of arable land" column is useful and we should store it? Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links
I have moved the following ELs here because they may be suitable for citations to support article content but are inappropriate as ELs: Joja lozzo  23:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, et al. (2014). Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
 * Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, et al. (2014). Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
 * Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, et al. (2014). Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
 * would you please state why, under WP:EL you see this as inappropriate? thx. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * External links should generally link to information that is useful, but may not be appropriate or easily presented in the article or to organisations/groups home pages directly affiliated with the article. If a news or journal article contains important information it should be presented and cited in the article. If it doesn't then it shouldn't be in the external links section. AIR corn (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

new section on "subgenic" type of genetic engineering
i think it is great to have a section on knockdowns. this should not describe specific work, but instead should describe it generally, as the already existing 2 sections did. (this is not new btw - if i remember rightly flav savr was a knockdown too)  will work on that later when i can. good addition tho! Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)