Talk:Genetically modified crops/Archive 2

crops that have been modified
added content in good faith based on a new WP:PRIMARY source reporting academic research to increase yields, in this dif]. I reverted, with regrets, in this dif. Two reasons. First this is a WP:PRIMARY source and we try to stay away from those. Second, there are literally hundreds of similar reports on various academic and corporate research projects; this article would be gargantuan if we described all of them and it is unclear why we would use this one. The article content is generally focused only on GM Crops that have actually been brought to market or that have become very prominent (like golden rice). That seems to be the best strategy... shall we keep it that way, or do folks want to change? If so, how shall we proceed? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I decided to proceed given that the new info was comparable to the existing content in that section. Golden rice is only one of the projects mentioned. I picked this out because it had been highlighted by the publisher (not just published) and because that led to additional coverage elsewhere. While not truly secondary, if presented in the right light (perhaps I did not) it is a worthwhile addition. Value: 2 cents. Lfstevens (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'd say it would be better to avoid talking about what is actively being researched. We don't really have notability from a weight perspective until the product is commercially available or something akin to that level of use. Ongoing research is always a sloppy topic since things fail all the time, ideas change, etc. If we didn't follow that, we should be listing everything that is currently going on for current research. We're not really at encyclopedic content for that content yet, so best to wait and see to avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL issues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to predict something and something else to talk about a discovery. If we're really going to get serious about secondaries, this article has to get a lot shorter. If we did a scan of wp for non-review research articles, how many would we find? WP:PRIMARY states "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". The emphasis is clearly on misuse. If we present primaries appropriately, "X reported that Y" rather than "Y", I think we avoid such misuse. Further if a primary has been challenged, we either remove it or describe the challenge. As Jytdog has stated, we may have an OR issue, but the approach I advocated ("it had been highlighted by the publisher...and had additional coverage elsewhere") takes that off the table, too. I've been thinking of filtering this article through the "secondary only" filter to show what it might actually imply. Would that be of value? Lfstevens (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In general, Wikipedia can use primary sources, but that's already shaky ground if you read the entirety of WP:PSTS. However it's even more stringent in dealing with scientific topics (i.e., WP:MEDRS, WP:SCIRS. The policy on secondary sources from where you were quoting on the primary policy is, "Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." When it comes to scientific sources, analytic or evaluative claims are always being made, so that's the core of why we especially reach for secondary sources in these topics. Similarly, at little further in what you quoted says, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." In order to assign weight (which is to a particular study, we need secondary sources demonstrating that. Otherwise we are putting something out there with no grounding in weight at all. If a primary study really is so important, it will then be mentioned in a review article.


 * As for other primary sources, feel free to bring them up. Contentious topics, especially ones dealing with science, should be relying on secondary sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Reversion re neonics
Here we go again. I added properly sourced material on neonics to more fully describe how plant protection is conducted in the GMO era in which essentially all of several major crops are GM. Plant protection is an important part of the GMO topic, and yet it was reverted. I'd appreciate the comments of other editors. Lfstevens (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * here is your edit.  I see nothing there specific to GM crops.  I know of no genetic modification relevant to neonics.  Why did you add the content to this article? Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. The insert doesn't claim that is a neonic tolerance trait. That's why I didn't put it in the trait section. Such a trait is probably unnecessary, of course. I put it in plant protection, because that's what it's about. Lfstevens (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The content isn't about GMOs, so I see no reason to include it. The source is about neonicotinoid insecticides. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. The source is about neonics as seed coatings for crops (e.g., corn) that are now essentially entirely GM. I.e., most/all GM corn seed has such a coating. It helps complete the picture of plant protection for these crops. That's why I thought it made sense here.
 * I have heard that biological protections are coming to Monsanto's seeds soon.
 * i don't get it, lfstevens. there is a lot more that farmers have to do in order to control insects than use a seed treatment.  (see here for example). The scope of this article is on GM crops.  Focusing on one way farmers control insects in addition to the genetic modification and neglecting all the others is bizarre and UNDUE.  Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is more to it. But just because the current edition is incomplete doesn't strike me as reason to eliminate it. As the article's history documents, I'm trying to build a more complete picture of current practices. As Monsanto will tell you, there is a lot more to their solutions than genetics. It's a complex interaction among a host of factors. I'm open to refactoring this topic, but in its absence I think this article will do as a collector. It's a process, not an endpoint. Lfstevens (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * every article has a scope, and I strongly disagree with the idea of expanding the scope of this article to include all agrichemicals. That makes no sense. The article on intensive crop farming is where you should be looking. Jytdog (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Reversion relating to scientific consensus
@Jytdog reverted the last in a long series of edits I made, claiming that I had altered the scientific consensus. It was not my intent to do so and reviewing the change again, I don't see in what sense I did so. I'm happy to make sure that my edits leave the prior meaning intact. Please enlighten me. Lfstevens (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * here is the revert. the text in the lead formerly (and now) reads: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food".  You had changed that to: "A broad scientific consensus holds that GM food poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food".  Do you see it now? 05:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Lfstevens (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the change from "there is" to "a" is trivializing and i believe you understand English well enough to know that. You also removed "on the market" which is an essential modifier - anti-GMO activists attack this scientific consensus statement constantly (and mind-boggling-ly) claiming WP is saying that any imaginable GM food is as safe as conventional food.   Our WP articles have never said that, and the scientific consensus is  very explicitly about currently marketed GM food and is stated clearly that way in WP.  I hope you will ask questions in the future instead of being defensive.  Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So how about "Broad scientific consensus holds that 2014's GM food products pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food" (along with the other changes you tossed in that revert)? Lfstevens (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you check across the GM suite, you will see that the language is uniform. Why are you insisting on changing it?  (and why do you want to leave it for readers to infer that food on the market 4 years ago was somehow not OK?) Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have to agree with Jytdog here. It doesn't seem like this proposed change would be an improvement in any way, but just a change for the sake of change. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The revision is shorter and more accurate (the undated "on the market" implicitly incorporates products as they come out) and I don't think the language implies anything about prior years, but I see I don't have consensus for the change, so that's that. Thanks for the discussion. Lfstevens (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for a little background understanding, that is exactly how such text is intended. For something to be on the market, it needs to be generally considered safe through various testing. The text is in line with this and wouldn't really be in a position to change unless evidence came up that something wasn't safe. There's a lot of fundamentals of toxicology, etc. that deals with a lot of nuanced understanding to produce a statement like that. It can be tough for folks just getting into the topic to grasp sometimes very specialized knowledge in the scientific realm, so as Jytdog alluded to, I'd suggest being careful when editing statements about scientific consensus especially. They can be reworked, but often times there's a lot of talk page discussion that lead to the specific text that should be kept in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Oranges
@Jytdog just reverted my addition of a ref in response to a His note indicated that he wanted to keep out things that are not on the market. What's up? I sometimes make multiple changes in one edit. If you object to one of them, why throw the baby out with it? Lfstevens (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. What I wrote in my edit note was "we have generally kept this limited to food that is on the market. if we add everything being tested this article would be enormous. happy to discuss".   I did not say that I "want to keep out things that are not on the market".  I am happy to discuss to responses to what I actually said - and I note that I should have said "Crops that are actually in production."  There are zillions of field trials that have happened and are happening; this article would be insanely long if we started including them.  But we can certainly discuss that.   Your other changes were just spacing - I am sorry if those spaces were very important to you -- feel free to restore them.  On an article with many watchers, like this one, it is better if to change things piecemeal, so that it easier to collaborate.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that you did not address my point, I will still try to address yours. I didn't add text about food that is not on the market. There was already something there. All I did was add a supporting ref. Your change did not remove the statement about the field trial. It only removed the reference! I'm presuming that the business about oranges is what you're concerned about. If not, please clarify. As you can see from the history, I make my many, many changes quite incrementally. Apparently the grain is still not fine enough for you. I'll try to accommodate that. I also note that I am happy to correct any errors I make and much prefer that to getting reverted. Lfstevens (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ah I see now! someone had already added unsourced content about field trials of oranges, and you added a ref.   I see now, sorry about that.  I just removed the unsourced content about field trials of oranges.  Sorry for my mischaracterization of your edit.  Generally your edits are very fine grained!  Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussions on scientific consensus on GMO safety elsewhere
See particularly.

FYI. The claim of "scientific consensus" on GMO safety is being discussed here and was briefly discussed here. David Tornheim (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Information about research
Why don't we want information about research projects in the encyclopedia? I think it's interesting to catalog the variety of traits researchers have either successfully or unsuccessfully genetically engineered into crops. We don't have to go into the details of each attempt, but look at something like List of unsolved problems in physics that gives a nice summary of the state of the field and the problems researchers are trying to solve. Given the nascent state of the technology right now, I think being more aware of the potential of genetic engineering is part of being an informed citizen. If it doesn't look like there are any interesting future applications for the technology, that can influence one's opinion of whether or not it's worthwhile to allow it. It doesn't have to go in this article, but there should be room in the project somewhere for it.-- Beland (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * hi, that is a very cool idea - the umbrella "list of solved problems". What I feel pretty strongly that we do not want, is a random collection of factoids along the lines of "this group modified X with Y to do Z" based on primary sources.  but what you propose is really different from that, and a great idea. I will work on that and am guessing that others who work on this topic will find that interesting too. It is rare that anybody proposes strategic ways to improve the article... fresh eyes are a good thing. Thank you! Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the general idea. The best thing to do here would be to find a review article that summarizes notable modifications that have been done. There's obviously a lot of stuff that's happened in the research world that was dismissed or tossed to the way side that don't get any mention, and some that could have been important too. Such a source would point that out what has been worked on and what is currently being worked on. Without that though, we're just listing random research projects without any WP:WEIGHT, which would be especially problematic because so many things just fizzle into nothingness. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * just what i had in mind. :) Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * this got archived. this is something i still think would be great to do!  just have not gotten to building it yet. too much distraction.. must work...on...content...... Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC on consensus statement of relative safety of currently marketed GM food
See here Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC on the placement of GMO safety consensus - should it be located in the Controversy section?
Here is the RfC.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Sentence on “broad scientific consensus” of GMO food safety fails to achieve consensus: It is time to improve it.
The Request for Comment (RfC) here created by Jytdog for the purpose of reaffirming the findings of   this  previous RfC on the language and sourcing of the sentence of a “broad scientific consensus” of the safety of GMO food (found in numerous articles) has closed here. There is no longer a consensus supporting the sentence. The closer stated:


 * Should the sentence be removed? Or maybe modified (and if so, to what)? There is no clear consensus on any particular action....Some of the opposes in this discussion appear to agree with the substance of this section but feel that the wording of the one sentence is overly broad; they might support more nuanced statements. I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording

I would also like to note that the closer of the earlier RfC made a similar recommendation:


 * ... it may be helpful to refer to to some of the literature reviews to represent alternative views on the matter with respect to due weight.

With these recommendations in mind, I have provided a new sentence in the article and for discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food that I believe is more WP:NPOV than the original that failed to achieve consensus at the recent RfC. Because the sentence occurs at numerous articles:


 * Genetically modified food controversies (Talk)
 * Genetically modified food (Talk)
 * Genetically modified crops(Talk)
 * Genetically modified organism(Talk)
 * Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (Talk)
 * March Against Monsanto (Talk)
 * The Non-GMO Project(Talk)

I suggest we continue to consolidate talk at Talk:Genetically modified food. David Tornheim (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

New era
Patents expiring...Monsanto faces competition Lfstevens (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom, requests for cases
A request for an Arbcom case and a AE request to apply pseudoscience discretionary sanctions  have been filed that may affect this article. All editors wishing to make a comment should visit the pages linked to. AlbinoFerret 17:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The AE request was closed and the Arbcom request is still open and accepting statements. AlbinoFerret  02:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Business impact section is POV
I tagged the section after coming to this page reading this for the first time today. The section only describes (impact on) the side of the GMO industry, not the other side, farmers that produce crops with traditional, non-GMO seeds.

Until and unless that is represented in this section I dont think the section is a neutral portrait of the issue.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Genetically modified crops. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120724222425/http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/web/News/FestivalNews/Growingagrassthatlovesbombs.htm to http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/web/News/FestivalNews/Growingagrassthatlovesbombs.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Scientific "consensus"
With this edit I changed the "scientific consensus" language to what was agreed on in Genetically Modified Food in this section, where there was an extensive RfC about it and negotiation that followed the RfC to the language that is there now, which was changed with this edit and has been stable since then (despite editors who have insisted the language is still too strong). That RfC was noticed in this article talk page here. When the RfC closed I noticed the subsequent discussion Genetically Modified Food [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetically_modified_crops/Archive_2#RfC_on_Sentence_on_.E2.80.9Cbroad_scientific_consensus.E2.80.9D_of_GMO_food_safety_fails_to_achieve_consensus:_It_is_time_to_improve_it. here] specifically suggesting the discussion take place at Genetically Modified Food, and no one objected. I am shocked to see has reverted my edit here and says, "This will probably need a rfc at some point". Seriously? You are you claiming that despite the notice of the RfC and subsequent notice about post-RfC discussion of that language were insufficient to justify using the result of those discussions for the language here? And that, therefore, a separate RfC must be held for each and every article that has this language? I am in disbelief. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You made no mention of a RFC or any consensus in your edit summary Controversy: changed from scientific consensus to scientific agreement per language in GMO foods.. The last RFC I can find on the subject is here and it closed as no consensus. If a RFC closes as no consensus then the status quo stays and unless a strong consensus can be reached on the talk page it usually takes another RFC to change it. AIR corn  (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the latest discussion on consensus. AIR corn (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at the edits, and Aircorn did not revert the entire edit, so all we seem to be arguing about here is whether the wording should be "scientific agreement" or "scientific consensus". I think that the language changes that Aircorn left intact are an improvement. As for getting into high dudgeon over agreement/consensus, I agree with Aircorn. There is a more precise meaning to the phrase "scientific consensus", so let's leave it that way, and find something more useful to discuss. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus per the cited sources, and the divide (i.e. ban of GMO crops worldwide) certainly underlines that. See also WP:OR and WP:SYN. prokaryotes (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So are you claiming that there is an agreement but not a consensus? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can settle with an agreement, but it would be more precise to state that on a case per case basis, as the WHO states in their official announcement on GMO safety. prokaryotes (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled why "scientific agreement" would be acceptable, but "scientific consensus" would not be. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because a consensus is a clear majority opinion, visible in the mainstream scientific literature, and through official announcements - which clearly refers to a consensus. There are probalby GMOs which can be considered relatively safe, and there might even exists such a consensus, but not general speaking - including every single GMO.prokaryotes (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to qualifying it to indicate the case-by-case aspect. To my knowledge, however, there has yet to be a "case" where a GM food in the food chain has been found to be unsafe, so it is "general" with respect to existing crops. And you seem to be agreeing that there is a consensus with respect to that. I don't think that anyone here is claiming that there is a scientific consensus that it would be impossible to create some GM plant that would be unsafe. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide a RS that makes the claim for agreement or consensus. AlbinoFerret  03:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the numerous earlier discussions, and please do not wiki-lawyer that it's SYNTH unless a meta source uses the word "consensus". In any case, the solution is not changing "consensus" to "agreement", because the latter is just a WP:WEASEL-word. But perhaps more importantly, please see what I'm about to say below. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The "just look for it" idea is just problematic. I have looked in the past, I was involved in the RFC. To date none of the reliable sources I have looked at make the claim and the claim appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS. The closest is the AAAS source, but it misstates the WHO and that is a red flag for reliability. AlbinoFerret  21:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I really should have done that to begin with, sorry. It's just that it gets tiring to feel like one is having to say the same thing over and over again. And I do emphasize that changing the word to "agreement" should not be a solution to satisfy anyone. For me, my previous statement about it,, covers the situation as I see it. And if you consider the AAAS to be an unreliable source, then we are in a situation where it will be very difficult to get to consensus. The American Association for the Advancement of Science is about as close as I can imagine to being what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish: You say, " The American Association for the Advancement of Science is about as close as I can imagine to being what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source." I thought for health concerns, we are supposed to rely on secondary sources, such as review articles per WP:MEDRS, right? Why are we not using these two sources for statements about health and GMOs?

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that I've discussed Krimsky with you at another page, and he is a reliable source as a critic of mainstream science, but not a reliable source as a spokesperson for mainstream science. I remember seeing prior discussion of Domingo, but I don't remember the details. I'm wondering, just off the top of my head now, whether there might be an approach in which we say something like (very approximately), "according to such major scientific organizations as AAAS and... there is a scientific consensus that...", followed by "some scientists, such as Domingo and... have however questioned whether there is such a consensus". --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Domingo doesn't really question the consensus, most of what I read he just asks for more testing. Anyway this approach runs into major WP:weight issues. If we want to present different opinions we will really need a Scientific opinions on the safety of genetically modified food article. BTW the AAAS source is a secondary source. AIR corn (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion
I've been thinking hard about ways we can perhaps get to consensus. I see that editors have added the language "but should be tested on a case-by-case basis." I fully support that additional language, because after all, that is indeed what the sources tell us.

I have another thought, and this is what I want to suggest. The scientific consensus in the sources isn't really that it is impossible that any GM food crop will ever pose a greater health risk than conventional crops. Editors objecting to the page language are making a good point, insofar as that goes. But that does not mean that the preponderance of sources are saying that there is a meaningful risk in the food supply as a result of GM. It's important to grasp that distinction. And that in turn leads to my suggestion.

The language now on the page is that "food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but...". The verb there is "poses", in the present tense. That is accurate, per the sources, but it also implies that the situation will remain true, going forward into the future. And that is not supported by the sources. Therefore, I suggest changing: poses to "has posed". Thus:



I could support that. Do other editors feel comfortable with it? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That addition says there is consensus, and then there isnt. Its conflicting and does not deal with the synthesis problem. If the consensus claim stays it has to be shown where it is located. AlbinoFerret  21:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it worrying that editor Tryptofish continues to ignore current concerns. He still fails to provide reliable sources for his consensus claim. prokaryotes (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OR which includes WP:SYNTHESIS is a core policy. It cant be overcome by local consensus of editors or RFC. A reliable source needs to be supplied. All the rest is just hand waving and distraction. AlbinoFerret  22:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it worrying, myself, that when I say that I support the language about case-by-case, and I then offer an additional change in the direction of accommodating the editors who have disagreed with me, some of those editors brush off my comments and accuse me of ignoring them. It sounds like "we have to get rid of the word "consensus", because these are Frankenfoods, and no compromise less than that will be acceptable". As for that core policy, I'm all in favor of complying with policies, and I hope that editors will now look at what I said at the NOR noticeboard, about two theories of what SYNTH really is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we get in a little trouble with WP:SYNTH going this route because there are two slightly different ideas that go hand in hand here that the literature talks about. That's also why I've moved (but not removed) the case-by-case language. The issue is that there are two main parts to the consensus statements out there.


 * 1. GM crops don't pose (present tense) an inherently greater health risk than their conventional counterparts. Full stop. This doesn't say there isn't any risk, but just that the risk doesn't inherently increase due to being a GMO. Risk analysis is a projection based science, so it uses current or future tense. This is basically just saying it's the traits within a variety that matter for safety assessment, not how the trait got there. GM and non-GM crops can have safety issues, which leads into . ..


 * 2. Currently marketed GM crops haven't posed a greater risk to human health than conventional food and are assessed for safety on a case-by-case basis. Since the lack of risk due to being a GMO is established, any safety assessments are just done on a per variety or transgenic event basis.


 * Basically there's the question of whether GM inherently does something that could be a significant risk followed by whether the specific crop, regardless of where it's traits came from, can be considered safe while looking at some specific traits. That's with the understanding that conventional crops can also go through a safety screening and found to be unsafe. The two ideas are complimentary, not antagonistic to each other as long as someone is catching the nuance. We do need to be careful we don't intermingle them too much and lose the meaning of both though.


 * That's why I moved the case-by-case language out as a separate clause. The mounds of literature out there often may focus on one of the two ideas a bit more or expect the reader to have some of this background already (which is why science editors at Wikipedia are expected to have a certain amount of competency in the given topic). I haven't quite thought of a good way to improve the remaining "currently marketed" text to also include the nuance on methodology risk, but I don't think now is the time to try dealing with all that nuance a stick to the language that had already been agreed upon before this talk section opened up with respect to using general scientific consensus. The current language hits the meat of that enough for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You should check reference before removing sourced content. Though, i did not checked the other two edits you just edited.prokaryotes (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a WP:LEDE. A source isn't always needed for those, especially when we just introduced all the sources in the prior sentence, and it's been that way for quite awhile now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'am puzzled by your response, the part you removed is sourced and discussed above, and are you suggesting to remove the references for the claim that there is a consensus? prokaryotes (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I only moved the case-by-case language. It was not deleted. It's a relatively minor detail, and it's already sourced in the previous sentence. So no, I never said absolutely all references should be removed from the lede, especially for something like the scientific consensus statement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not a minor detail, and there is no consensus for removing it, even Tryptofish suggest this addition above. prokaryotes (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed this is not a minor detail, it is based on core policies, and if it violates it no local consensus of editors or RFC can stand compared to wide community consensus of core policies. that are the foundation of WP. AlbinoFerret  03:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's not go on a tangent here. The whole bit about being a minor detail in the relative sense is that it isn't something requiring a source under WP:LEDE. That's especially when the previous sentence is sourcing all those ideas already for something that should have lede references such as scientific consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The tangent is WP:LEDE which is a guideline, which cant be used to overcome WP:VER and WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR which are core policies. Please provide the source. AlbinoFerret  04:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEDE, the sources are provided in the body, and the lede merely summarizes the body. There is not policy violation, so please stop flashing them about as if there is something wrong with following the lede guideline.Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then it will be no problem to point out the specific source, page location, and wording for the scientific consensus claim. Please provide it. AlbinoFerret  16:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What I think I am seeing here is that Kingofaces does not want the change in verb tense and wants the case-by-case lower in the paragraph; other editors want nothing less than the removal of the phrase "scientific consensus". I tried to offer a compromise, in between those two positions. I still hope that editors on each "side" will find it in their hearts to "give" a little. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure it's clear, I was wanting the case-by-case language immediately after the consensus statement (as opposed to lower in the paragraph). There was a lot of mischaracterization above that I deleted the phrase entirely, moved it below a bunch of text, etc. Nothing as egregious as it would seem by reading the comments above. For tense, it just gets tricky here because there are both forward thinking and current evaluation statements out there as explained above. Both tenses are correct, but we need to be careful not to exclude one. Even at the potential of having a compromise, I would have to say the current wording does things marginally better. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting me about that; the wiki-markup made it look in the diff like there was a lot of stuff in between. I really do want to find a compromise, though. I actually am pretty satisfied with the version at the page a moment ago: . But I wonder whether you could be persuaded to be flexible about the verb tense issue? Perhaps it won't be enough for the editors on the other "side", but any movement towards peace would be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Separating out the case-by-case language as a separate clause is more important in my mind. Tense isn't as big of a deal for me as you presented at least, but my main mention of it is to be sure we have understanding on talk at least of the different ideas at play here where different tenses can apply. I'm not going to nitpick about tense at this time beyond talk page discussion though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree with both of you that the addition of the language "case-by-case" is an improvement of the representation of what is actually in the sources and I think agrees too.  That improvement is why I am not as aggressive as the others in challenging the change of "scientific agreement" to "scientific consensus", as I did when the change was first made and I wrote about it on this talk page here.  (Yet, I do agree with the others that "scientific consensus" is OR and SYN.  As is "scientific agreement".)  Even though I have kept some distance from the emerging walls-of-text from this discussion of the "scientific consensus",  because of the favorable addition, I want to remind you both and Aircorn of this:  As I said above, I was quite troubled that what had previously seemed to be a Gentleman's agreement of the post-RfC discussion here to change "scientific consensus" to "scientific agreement" (in all the GMO articles that had it, not just GMO food), was completely undermined by bringing back the word "consensus".  That is why we now have an explosion of posts objecting to the change.  That compromise proposed and executed by Jytdog and even agreed to by  reduced the conflict over the sentence.  Now that you three are trying to force the word "consensus" back in, opposition has predictably resurfaced.  So I really don't understand what the purpose of trying to bring back the word "consensus" is and suggesting for yet another RfC, when that sentence had been fairly stable since the "consensus" was changed to "agreement".  It seems like an invitation for drama.  The two words are definitely not the same or there would not be so much opposition (or push) for the change. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * David, I appreciate your collegial approach here. I didn't take part in or follow that "gentleman's agreement", and looking back at it now to see what it says, it does not really seem that much like a clear consensus. I did not really follow this page closely until I saw Aircorn's edit that put "consensus" back, and the subsequent drama. Lately, I've been trying to stay away from GMO pages until such time as I see drama erupting, at which point I've been stepping back in. I agree with you that the words are not interchangeable, but it seems to me that "agreement" is a WP:WEASEL-word, whereas "consensus" is both precise and fully supported by the source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There also wasn't ever any gentleman's agreement to use the term agreement, so there wasn't really anything to take part in there. We had settled on the phrase general scientific consensus, but that's as far as we've ever got on agreed upon language as of late. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Source Request "scientific consensus"
To avoid any WP:SYNTHESIS which is on the core policy page WP:OR I request the source of the "scientific consensus" claim. This section need have nothing but a link to the source and a page number and a copy of the wording that supports the claim from a WP:RS. Those that the support the claim are asked to provide it. Arguing that its there and not providing the exact source and wording will not solve this issue. Please provide the required source per WP:VER. AlbinoFerret 02:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I brought up the AAAS statement at the OR noticeboard as that is the strongest source currently in the article. BTW If this is synth (which I don't think it is) is not saying "scientific agreement" as problematic synth wise as saying "scientific consensus"? AIR corn (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just agreement maybe, considering that most GMOs are up for sale, we should reflect that. Just not the word consensus. prokaryotes (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the synth question. AIR corn (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Or use the per source quotation. prokaryotes (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The only problem is that the AAAS source only lists 4 groups, not even mentioning scientific agreement or consensus, even worse it misstates the WHO that GMO's have to be guaged on a case by case basis, a red flag for reliability. It also does not list any other sources it relies on, second flag. Third it is a statement of the Board of directors of the AAAS, not the orginazation, third flag. Try again. If the statement said " The AAAS board of directors said four organizations ..............." even listing the WHO ect out, it would be one thing, but the problems with the source, and using it to back a "scientific consensus" statement is problematic. Its still OR/synthesis.  AlbinoFerret  21:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No point arguing this at two places. Better off at the No Original Noticeboard where there is a slight chance uninvolved editors might comment. AIR corn (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No original research/Noticeboard AIR corn (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Potential RFC
So it seems like myself, Tryptofish, KingofAces and Lfstevens will come up with agreement on the wording for that sentence soon. It is also obvious that other editors will disagree with that wording. So I am thinking this will probably go back for another WP:RFC to get a wider community input. If we go that route can we please discuss the wording and scope before starting one. If we are going to put all this effort in again we may as well give it the best chance of reaching a consensus one way or the other. AIR corn (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not how an article is written. We don't "come up with a statement". This 'statement' is what we usually refer to as a summary of content already agreed upon and included in the body of the article.


 * To say that some editors will disagree is to admit you've no grasp of the situation. The RfC failed because when reliable sources are reviewed, it is clear there is no support for the idea that the science is settled. The sources are the "side that will disagree".


 * We have all agreed that to claim, for instance, that the Pew poll of AAAS scientists found '80% think GMOs are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts' is fine. To claim in WPs voice instead, based on this source, that there is "general scientific agreement", without making clear that this is not in reference to all scientists, or most, but a very small subset, is not acceptable. There are no stronger sources supporting this specific claim (and we don't need to revisit the "no WP:OR conversation, I hope), so this doesn't have support either.


 * The RfC failed because when it comes down to it, much evidence exists for the fact that there is rigorous scientific debate, especially in non-US countries, and that there is no consensus or general agreement.


 * So the proper step is to bring sources that should be included in an encyclopedic article, and quote them properly. For instance, it should be mentioned that the WHO says there is no way in can be claimed that all GMO foods are safe. We need to add mention of the studies/reviews that have found harm, when they meet MEDRS, as well as make a note about the amount of support for GMO labeling that exists in the States, and other "public perception" details.


 * Then, we can summarize AS A GROUP the content that has been added.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please consider to use several direct quotes, and something along the lines of the WHO for the lede.prokaryotes (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing much reason to discuss the possibility of an RfC yet. First, we have to have some clarity about draft sentences, with proposed sources, and then see where we stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed there is no reason to talk even of "draft sentences" until all of the content to be added and summarized has been discussed, individually. The RfC failed to reach consensus because when the 18 sources that were used to support the "statement" were reviewed, they were all found lacking. The closer noted that the RfC was poorly constructed, as the editors were asked to review sources that weren't included in the article, and that changed throughout the RfC. It isn't appropriate to ask editors to review multiple sources that haven't been through the discussion process already. I would suggest editors begin to add content suggestions, using direct quotes. I'll begin a section below.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "The closer found the RFC was poorly constructed". Bang - nail hit on the head. Just suggesting that we should make sure a new one (if we need one - maybe we will all agree on something for once) is not poorly constructed. Maybe I jumped the gun, but I have taken part in too many poorly thought out RFC's not to at least suggest this. AIR corn (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Bingo. The closer said they couldn't give a heads or tails decision. It's a bit early to suggest an RfC, and we don't defacto need one for this either. We've got strong sources supporting the consensus statement and also qualifying that the WHO's comments are exactly in line with that instead of opposing it. If we do, it will be a matter of providing the draft text and quotes from the relevant sentences. I'm doing a few tweaks above, but I'll have something on the talk page here soon that should be close to a proposed version to springboard off to whatever the next step is. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Its probably a bit naive to think this won't go to RFC, and I personally would not be comfortable not going giving the level of community input to the most recent one that closed as no consensus. It is not perfect, but it remains the best way we can get consensus on article content. If I was Petra, David or Prokaryotes I would be drafting a similar sentence, based on what they consider the most reliable sources, regarding the scientific opinion relating to GM food safety. AIR corn (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm just talking in terms of what consensus is and not functionally what's likely to happen. In the event of an RfC though, it might be useful to consider separate involved and uninvolved response sections. That might be tough to implement with it's own issues, but the last RfC was a bit of a mess because of some WP:BLUDGEON issues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A useful RfC works by getting "fresh eyes", input from editors who do not already have a (GM) dog in the fight. A big part of the reason why the previous RfC was no-consensus is that it was dominated by fillibustering by the editors who were already declared partisans on both "sides". I suggest taking a look at the top of Talk:Jerusalem, where one can see that ArbCom ran a carefully monitored RfC in 2013, with binding rules. I suggest that in a general way, we should consider doing something similar for the similarly intractable dispute here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for content addition
Pro and others have suggested, in line with PAGs, that the content being summarized in the hotly disputed "safety statement" should be spelled out with as much detail as possible, with attribution, before summarizing it in WP's voice for placement in the intro. WP:nPOV dictates that we also include any criticisms and that we don't exclude details regarding the controversial side of this issue.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The WHO
 * Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.


 * GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.


 * Imo, it is necessary for a fair, balanced view to present sufficient context for a food safety summary. Important points include:
 * The unique position of the US in GM as far as regulation and economic interest, and how regulation in the US works.
 * The US's unique GRAS doctrine, and how it compares with the precautionary approach.
 * The basic idea of substantial equivalence: how it works, and the views, scientific and otherwise, about its current reality.
 * An explanation of GM methods as not inherently more risky than other breeding methods.
 * What it means that no harm has been documented so far, how that is determined.


 * I'm not imagining a sprawling recap of these various issues, instead, a tightly written, integrated summary of the relevant factors that input into GMO safety considerations, tailored to crops and food. Right now, this is just about ABSENT as a clear, accessible narrative for the general reader. --Tsavage (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying, by putting "not likely" into bold font that is not in the original source, that the source is saying that there is a significant likelihood? What is the reason that you did not use bold font for "have passed safety assessments"? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That was posted by Petrarchan47. My common sense read is that the emphasis serves to highlight the particular language the WHO uses in its safety summary, simple as that. --Tsavage (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Trypto, WP and Jdog, along with anyone else who has (re)inserted the contested language into articles, has been misrepresenting the WHO. My bold makes clear how this is so, although this issue has been covered quite extensively already, in both the RfC (by Sarah SV, especially) and the ArbCom case. I noticed at the OR/N Corn was questioning Pro's echoing these claims. My bold was also a response to him. Misquoting is what started the RfC - as Jdog and King became overwhelmed with complaints by GF editors trying to protect WP's veracity.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Whoever posted it with those emphases, there is a serious problem here with misrepresenting the WHO source, and I am not one of the editors who are doing the misrepresenting. I am going, here, to re-post what the source actually says, but without any editorializing-by-bold-font. (This is based on a recent post I made at NORN.)

The WHO source is divided into multiple sections. There are two sections that are relevant to the question of whether scientists view GM foods as safe or not: 8 ("Are GM foods safe?") and 12 ("Have GM products on the international market passed a safety assessment?"). Here is section 8, without bolding anything:

I agree that it does indeed support the idea that WHO is advocating for case-by-case evaluation. And it does indeed make it clear that, without case-by-case testing, it is impossible to draw reliable conclusions about safety. But the sentence in the first paragraph thus cannot be saying that it is impossible to make a general statement on the safety of all GM foods currently available, because the authors go on to make exactly that general statement in the second paragraph. The call for testing, and the caution against general statements, are being made with respect to new GM plants, as they come out, not with respect to those already in the food chain.

Here is section 12:

That's about as strong as statement as one can get about GM products currently available. We should indeed note that the WHO says that GM crops and foods should be tested case-by-case as they come along, and that one cannot make a general conclusion about the safety of new products before they are tested. But the WHO is absolutely in agreement with the preponderance of reliable sources in saying, unambiguously, that "products that are currently on the international market have all passed safety assessments". That is the scientific consensus, and it is a misrepresentation of source material to say otherwise.

And just for the heck of it, I will repeat the text above, but with an alternative scheme of bold fonts:





It sure looks different that way, doesn't it? But I'm not advocating that we utilize the source that way. Just that we read the source as it is written. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * To drive that point home even further, there is the FOA source that says (my bolding):
 * The misinterpretation with the WHO source has been that it contradicts with the idea that GM crops are not riskier (not even talking consensus here). In addition to the FAO, we have the AAAS clarifying that this idea is untrue and a bunch of other sources I'm sure we could focus on that mention the who as part of the safety statement even if they don't explicitly mention consensus. For those not familiar, the WHO and FAO are basically sister agencies in the UN that collaborate together on food issues. Even if we ignore Trypto's overview of the source standalone, we'd expect more fireworks if the two agencies were disagreeing. Sources secondary to the WHO show this isn't the case though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The misinterpretation with the WHO source has been that it contradicts with the idea that GM crops are not riskier (not even talking consensus here). In addition to the FAO, we have the AAAS clarifying that this idea is untrue and a bunch of other sources I'm sure we could focus on that mention the who as part of the safety statement even if they don't explicitly mention consensus. For those not familiar, the WHO and FAO are basically sister agencies in the UN that collaborate together on food issues. Even if we ignore Trypto's overview of the source standalone, we'd expect more fireworks if the two agencies were disagreeing. Sources secondary to the WHO show this isn't the case though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Content addition break

 * You remind me - I meant to suggest that folks read the WHO page from which I quote above. In my view, it is an excellent example of how an encyclopedia should read. Very concise, clear and informative.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. There is a clear, logical lead-up to food safety, which is the eighth section in. The WHO outline:
 * What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods?
 * Why are GM foods produced?
 * Is the safety of GM foods assessed differently from conventional foods?
 * How is a safety assessment of GM food conducted?
 * What are the main issues of concern for human health?
 * How is a risk assessment for the environment performed?
 * What are the issues of concern for the environment?
 * Are GM foods safe?
 * How are GM foods regulated nationally?
 * What kind of GM foods are on the market internationally?
 * What happens when GM foods are traded internationally?
 * Have GM products on the international market passed a safety assessment?
 * What is the state of public debate on GMOs?
 * Are people’s reactions related to the different attitudes to food in various regions of the world?
 * Why are certain groups concerned about the growing influence of the chemical industry on agriculture?
 * What further developments can be expected in the area of GMOs?


 * And that, a FAQ, is 2700 words, GM crops is 6600 wds, GM food 4800 wds, and most of this is either not covered, or poorly covered, between them. We're not out to reinvent the wheel. We have one reliable source that can be expanded on, and logical articles broken out with much more detail. Why are we not doing that, and trying to do something else? Editors are actually combing through "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food" looking for definitive support for a scientific consensus wording - what is going on? --Tsavage (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I feel very favorably about covering the topics listed in Tsavage's first list of bullet points (ie, the first list, not the recap of the WHO source sections). I think it's especially important to have an international perspective. But there are some things I'm not clear about, because we seem to have gotten into this discussion section by way of discussion about a single sentence in the lead. You don't mean to cover all of this in a single sentence or so, right? I don't see how that could be done. And I hope that we won't attempt to cover all of this in the lead section, right? This material needs to be dealt with at sufficient length. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am referring to ensuring that the articles, GM food/GM crops, cover the basics, I'm not suggesting that a single sentence cover those basics.


 * The lead for a developed article should summarize the article, and a summary sentence, wherever it appears, should be supported by sufficient in-article context to allow the reader to make sense of that summary. Any broad summary statement about GM food safety, using consensus language or otherwise, needs to at the same time be supported by the necessary context, to avoid being misleading or misrepresentative. An explanation of the US regulatory system, GRAS, substantial equivalence, etc (e.g. the content in either my list or, even better, the more extensive WHO list), is required to make minimally informed sense of a safety summary.


 * That the WHO has done that and much more in half the space of our entire GM food article, indicates that it can be done, and in fact gives use the reliable source necessary to do so without delay. --Tsavage (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand Trypto's question, though. We really should divide this discussion of sources/missing content into two parts for now, to keep things simple. The summary of views on GMO safety needs to be discussed separately, and immediately. Why don't we list sources that address this specific issue, that qualify as RS, add them to related articles, and update our summary statement accordingly?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Only just saw your comment above, and posted A new take on the safety summary. --Tsavage (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment about the questions to be answered. I think I have expressed before that if one of the goals of the articles is to answer a set of questions, the selection of which questions will make a difference in what is covered.  People who know little about GMO's may be asking the "wrong" questions--because they do not have a basic understanding of GMO's.  So popular questions may be poorly phrased and difficult to answer simply.  Some rumor about GMO's might be spread and there may be a lot of questions about the rumor.   Consider for example rumors about Area 51, where I think I once saw a TV program or found a book where an individual claimed aliens had been captured and they had seen the aliens.  I do not think it is the encyclopedia's job to address a question such as "Are there aliens in Area 51?" any more than "Is the moon made of green cheese?"  but instead to objectively report on what is known about Area 51 (or the moon) without any needless focus on crazy rumors and questions about them, except perhaps reporting on the RS that says such a rumor is popular.  Of course, your questions are not like that, but I use these extreme example to show how popular questions (and misconceptions) are often not the "best" questions.


 * As further examples of my concern, consider different list of questions from different sites. Questions from industry sites, consumer sites, anti-gmo sites or regulatory agencies will all be slightly different to address the goals of the organization posing and answering the questions.  The FDA for example will want to reassure readers through their Q&A that they are doing a great job regulating them, while the others will have a different agenda.


 * Consider for example, these lists of questions from a Google search.
 * Q&A from GMO Answers (I believe this is an industry site) Questions & Answers:
 * If livestock eat genetically modified grain, will there be GMOs in my meat?
 * Are feeds made from GMOs safe for livestock?
 * Are GMOs contributing to the death of bees?
 * Are GMOs contributing to the death of butterflies?
 * Why are companies against labeling GMO foods?
 * Are GMOs causing an increased use of pesticides?
 * Why aren’t long-term health studies conducted on GMO plants?
 * Are GMOs contaminating organic food crops?
 * Are GMOs Increasing the Price of Food? ←
 * Are big companies forcing farmers to grow GMOs?
 * Are GMOs causing an increase in allergies?
 * Do GMOs Cause Cancer?
 * From grist.com (I think also pro-industry) Q&A:
 * I’ve heard that GMOs are totally unregulated, is that true?
 * Do the big seed companies prevent scientists from doing research on their patented plants?
 * Are there dangers for scientists working on genetically engineered plants?
 * Is genetic engineering more likely than other forms of plant breeding to create unforeseen changes?
 * Isn’t genetic engineering more likely to create allergens?
 * So, does the chance that novel allergens could emerge make genetic engineering dangerous?
 * But what about those studies suggesting that GMOs are harmful?
 * Isn’t it possible that some subtle, unintended shift in corn DNA is causing the obesity epidemic, the rise of autoimmune disorders, autism, and Morgellons disease?
 * Have genetically engineered crops reduced insecticide applications?
 * Haven’t the decreases in insecticides been dwarfed by increases in herbicides?
 * What about soil and carbon? Have GMOs led to carbon capture and soil preservation by facilitating an increase in no-till and low-till farming?
 * Who has profited from genetically engineered crops?
 * Aren’t there big problems caused by the fact that genetically engineered seeds are patented?
 * But that’s nothing, what about Monsanto forcing farmers to buy their seeds by spreading the terminator gene?
 * Is genetically engineered pollen spreading into regular old plants?
 * Do genetically engineered crops help or hurt poor farmers?
 * Do we absolutely need genetically engineered crops to feed the world?
 * So should we label GMOs?
 * From Monsanto Q&A
 * What are biotechnology, genetic engineering, genetic modification and GMOs? And, why does Monsanto use it?
 * Are foods and ingredients developed through biotechnology (or GMOs) safe to eat?
 * Who makes sure biotech crops are safe to eat and safe for the environment?
 * Can consumers avoid GM foods in the grocery store if desired?
 * Are foods and ingredients developed from genetically modified (GM) crops labeled?
 * Do GM crops provide any benefits?
 * Has anyone studied the long-term health effects of GM crops (GMOs)?
 * In addition to animal feeding studies, are human clinical trials used to test the safety of biotech (GM) crops?
 * Is food grown with or developed from biotech seeds contributing to allergies in America?
 * I’ve seen reports of studies showing GM crops are safe and others saying they aren’t. Who and what do I believe?
 * Council for Responsible Genetics (critical/skeptical of GMO's) Q&A?
 * How many genetically engineered foods are on the market?
 * Isn't genetic engineering merely a minor extension of traditional breeding practices?
 * Won’t genetically engineered foods cure world hunger?
 * Isn't genetic engineering a precise and predictable science?
 * Do genetically engineered foods pose risks to human health and safety?
 * Do genetically engineered foods pose risks to the environment?
 * Do genetically engineered foods raise other ethical considerations?
 * Doesn't the U.S. government test genetically engineered foods to ensure that they are safe for human consumption?
 * What is the U.S. government policy on labeling of genetically engineered food?
 * Do consumers have a right to know that their food has been genetically engineered?

An organic food site Q&A:
 * How can I determine if a product contains GMO ingredients?
 * Is there any way I, as a consumer, can get my food tested for GMOs?
 * What are the tests and how do they work?
 * How large a batch of material is needed for a statistically valid result?
 * Does batch size change with kind of material (e.g. seed versus ground meal), or type of source (e.g. corn vs. soy)?
 * How is the sample taken, and how it is treated before testing?
 * Once a product has been verified, what, if anything, might trigger retesting it later?
 * What are the costs involved for current PCR testing?
 * How long does it take from sampling the batch to determining the results?
 * Much of the current end use of GMO corn and soy is as animal feed. Can GMO feeding be detected in the final meat, milk, eggs, fiber, etc?
 * What innovations are happening in the science or engineering of GMO testing and what options might they open up?
 * What products does the Non-GMO Project verify?
 * What foods can I buy without worrying about GMO ingredients?
 * Is organic certification a guarantee against GMOs?
 * Where can I get products that don't contain GMOs?
 * How about feed for my pets or livestock?

As you can see from these lists there is a huge difference in what Questions are asked (and how they are answered) based on who is doing the asking. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The IMMEDIATE advantage of the WHO FAQ is that it is also entirely a reliable source, so it can be used to get the articles quickly to a minimum quality standard. My concern is that months and years seem to go by here with lots of talk and nothing much done. It would be nice to have a reasonable informative GM article sooner than later. The WHO FAQ makes that doable. --Tsavage (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I see. That is an advantage, I suppose. My main point still remains that every organization has an agenda as to what Questions they ask (and how they go about answering them).  The industry sites want to ally fears, the FDA (and entities like the WHO) wants you to know that they are doing a great job regulating GMO's and GMO trade internationally, the organic site tells you how to avoid GMO's, and the other site challenges the industry claims about feeding the world, the idea that GMO is the same as breeding, etc., so who writes the questions indeed makes a big difference.  I don't think the WHO list is a great list to be honest, not even close to comprehensive, but at least the WHO is RS, unlike probably all of the others that I provided. I don't have a problem with having these questions easily answered.
 * But I think the bigger problems with the articles is that they are poorly organized by title and internally, multiple articles have similar and complicated names and often have (or should have) more or less the same information and the information in different articles can actually seem to contradict each other because one article is incorrect, and basic information such as the major difference between European and the USA regulatory schemes is buried in the wrong sections making it hard to find the information that is there. This is why I have decided to not put as much effort into the debate about the sentence on the "scientific consensus" as I have in the past, because the other material about regulations is not adequately explained and even misrepresented.  --David Tornheim (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * (BTW, here's a shortlist of FAQs I assembled for my own crosschecking reference, a kinda nice mix: WHO, Non-GMO Project, Whole Foods Market, FDA, Monsanto, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and Kids' Guide to GE by Tiki the Penguin. :) --Tsavage (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * LOL. Did you put those lists on Wikipedia somewhere? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * One extremely practical use for a selection of FAQs is to definitively show what subject areas are considered part of the mainstream topic, and do not belong separated in a Controversies article. And the 2700-word WHO FAQ, half the length of our current GM Foods article, demonstrates that a lot can be covered in a concise, summary style. This should put a well-sourced end to basic content inclusion debates. --Tsavage (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * True, but I think we want to have more information than a FAQ from the WHO and should have high quality RS to back up our material. The WHO speaks in broad generalizations, some of which I find not entirely helpful and provides no footnotes to explain exactly what they mean and why they came to their conclusion and what opinions they rejected and why they rejected them.  More like "Trust us.  We are the WHO.  We have experts who write our material.  You don't need to know where it came from."  (Argument from authority.)  The section "8. Are GM foods safe?"  that has been dissected both for and against saying there is a "scientific consensus" on the safety of GMO food is a good example of the problem I descirbe.  Having read the RS, I do not consider it a very accurate description of the literature (I have seen worse of course), although there is certainly RS available to support just about every sentence in that section, they don't refer us to any of it.  (That probably can be found somewhere, and if you know, please share.)  I guess I am not all that impressed with the WHO FAQ.  I think we should do better, so it will take more language.  Now as for the leads of our articles, they will need to be more concise like the WHO language, and then refer to the discussion in the body.  My two cents.  --David Tornheim (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Guys if you want results in these discussions, ask a clear question for article change, then ask for editors to oppose or support the edit. We only require RFC if there is no clear majority for support. prokaryotes (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Scope of Crops safety statement
Seems that a safety statement about GM crops should account for more than safety for human consumption only, the crop safety concern also includes environmental impact and pesticide emission (and, notably, in the US, these aspects are handled by separate agencies than the FDA). A consumption-only statement presents an unbalanced view of crop safety concerns, the regulatory frameworks that determine them, and the related science, and general issues. In the current lead, stating GM crops also provide a number of ecological benefits, right after the food safety statement, without mention of environmental safety assessment requirements, furthers this imbalance. (This food safety sentence should be similarly examined for contextual fit in the several other articles it was inserted into.) --Tsavage (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that on-farm safety is also something that this page should cover. But I think it is best not to try to deal with both kinds of safety in a single sentence; instead, there should be a separate sentence or two. And I also think that it is important to treat on-farm safety not simply in absolute terms, but also in relation to farm safety of conventional crops. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If there are two kinds of safety, including an "on-farm" safety, then this is the "on-farm article" (we have a spun-off Genetically modified food article, this article discusses at length yield, agricultural business, farming practices, Bt and glyphosate resistance in pests,...), and the immediate focus should be on duly representing the crop safety aspects, which are equally part of all regulatory frameworks along with food safety, yet are not mentioned in this, the crop article.


 * I'm not sure why editors are working so intently on trying to change the wording of a single food safety sentence to read "consensus," in a crops article where the crop safety aspects are MISSING. Their absence creates the misleading impression that food safety is the prime safety concern in agriculture, when in fact, even in the favorable US GM regulatory environment, there is, for example, more safety restriction on growing GM crops, by the USDA, than there is on using them for food, by the FDA. We have to be careful to fairly balance aspects. --Tsavage (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * About "consensus", there is no mystery. It's what the source material indicates. About crop safety on the farm, no one is opposing giving that appropriate coverage. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We are giving hugely UNDUE weight to food safety by focusing on what is only one of multiple equal aspects of crop safety, in a crops article that does not mention those other aspects. --Tsavage (talk)


 * Another, related, thought occurs to me. I wonder if this page should be merged with Genetically modified foods. It seems like two needlessly parallel pages. Of course, there is a difference between the two, as we are discussing here, but we could cover the two interrelated topics on one page. I'm not making a formal merge proposal, but just seeing what the reaction to the idea is. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The split doesn't seem to have worked out too well, after 3.5 years: GM food, 2 August 2012 version. The subject came up last June in GM foods talk: In many ways, I find the old article MUCH more comprehensive, readable and informative than the current version, it just needs some editing (not tearing apart). I can itemize some examples if you like., and the comparison that followed (scroll to) Comparison of pre-rearrangement article with current version. I doubt there'd be agreement to do that, but what is an idea...


 * Perhaps a more practical suggestion is renaming this article Genetically modified organisms in agriculture or GMOs in agriculture, and starting by literally merging the old version with what's here now. It would serve as an gateway from the broader Genetics > Genetic engineering, with a much better overview scope than a Crops article—definition from Agriculture: "Agriculture is the cultivation of animals, plants, fungi, and other life forms for food, fiber, biofuel, medicinal and other products used to sustain and enhance human life." A basic merge could be done in an hour or two.--Tsavage (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a few saved sources that address safety for livestock or the environment. I haven't gotten around to writing content based on them, so I'm happy to post them here if anyone is interested. I'd also agree that this should be discussed as a separate issue, even if only to help keep the discussion organized. Sunrise (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)