Talk:Genetically modified crops/Archive 6

General agreement sentence, continued
I'm continuing this discussion from, above.

Existing language on the page now

At present, the sentence in the lead is:

Proposal first draft

Based on the discussion about, I want to propose the following as one possible revision of that sentence, on this page and on the other pages where it takes place:

I recognize that some editors may disagree with this, and if so, I urge them to propose an exact wording and sourcing for alternative versions. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * oppose: Although I have not stated it above, I preferred your more recent version that said "but see also" and referred to Domingo and Krimsky and the inclusion of that material in the body of the article--more NPOV.  Regardless, I oppose the change to "scientific consensus" which has a different meaning than "general scientific agreement" as I explained previously (diff to be provided).  I oppose the change for all the reasons the original language about "scientific consensus" presented and argued at length the massive second RfC here about this language and the creation of settled language in late August-early September 2015, as I explained previously above here and here.  One last concern is that some articles (e.g. Genetically modified food) say that "that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health...".  This is closer to the language that comes from the E.U. report that uses the phrase that GMOs are not "per se" riskier.  That language is more precise.  I acknowledge that the recent addition of the language by you about case-by-case testing has been an improvement.  --David Tornheim (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)  (revised 08:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Two things: Given the discussion at NORN, I would encourage you to find a non-OR source for "general scientific agreement". And I fully realize that there is no way that we are going to get unanimous agreement for anything about this sentence. That's just the way it is. So, for that reason, I would ask that editors not simply treat this as a support/oppose vote, but instead provide exact wording with sourcing for alternative versions. If there really are multiple draft versions that have some traction, then we can have an ArbCom-supervised RfC similar to the one that took place for Jerusalem, to select among them. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: No need (at least for me) to provide links to the previous RfC and subsequent discussion. I'm quite familiar with it. And what I am discussing here is in conformity with the close of that RfC, despite what some other editors have claimed. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I will make a more specific proposal. It might take a few days.  The statement here (assuming it also includes Domingo, Krimisky and possibly Panchin (who I am unfamiliar with)) is a more NPOV treatment:


 * Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council,[12] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[13] and the American Medical Association.[14]


 * Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations,[15] organic farming organizations,[16] and consumer organizations.[17] A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US’s approach to regulating GMOs.[18]


 * --David Tornheim (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks David. I'll be happy to compare versions when you have had time to get that ready. By the way, what you have above includes more than the sentence I was discussing. In what you have there, everything from "Groups in the US opposed to GMOs..." on is material that I would be quite willing to accept as coming after the sentence that I propose. And to all editors who object to my proposed version: please remember that the best thing for you to do is to present a specific alternative, which could perhaps be David's. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am in general on board with this as a potential proposal. It generally reflects the sources regardless of personal editor views on the subject. The only tweak I'd suggest is moving Panchin into the but see also [4] alongside Krimsky and Domingo as it address the claims of those sources directly. It basically tells the story through successive refs that way. That would seem to satisfy WP:FRINGE at least, and I'd be ok with that version as text.


 * That said, I still think an even better approach would be to tackle Krimsky, Panchin, etc. head on in the text, potentially even before we initiate an RfC. With that, I'm going to initially float the idea here of adding this as new content. If the content itself needs discussion, I'd go with a new talk section to avoid clutter here. If for some reason it doesn't work out, and an RfC is needed, we could discuss including it in this talk section as a different proposal. I feel like focusing on two different sentences in an RfC might be asking a bit much for respondents in this topic though, so it seems worthwhile to take a try intermediate attempt beforehand. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be better to have Panchin with the other two. I'm fine with the new statement you added to the body, and I think it could be in the lead as well, though I don't know if it's too important either way - probably not important enough to risk derailing an RfC for. But hopefully another RfC won't actually be necessary, since the general concepts of the sentence aren't really changing, after all. Sunrise (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this proposal is a large improvement over the current version. One thing I haven't mentioned yet, though, is the phrasing for the "case-by-case" statement. First, AFAIK it's a true statement, and one that should be included prominently. I haven't seen anyone cite RS/AC calling for more sourcing yet, but here are a few sources to try and address this anyways. Only one of them (the second) uses the phrasing "general agreement," and it's just the abstract of a scientist's presentation, but the third comes pretty close several times. So these may or may not be useful and/or could be a basis for different wording.
 * As an aside, may also be useful at some point for a statement on case-by-case evaluation for environmental concerns.
 * The second thing is juxtaposition - in a way, the phrase is positioned as if it refutes the first part of the sentence, and the use of the word "but" to indicate contrast doesn't help. I think replacing "but" with "and" might be an improvement, but I think a better option would be something like "and there is general agreement that..." if we have the sourcing for it. Or another option would be to put it in a separate sentence. Sunrise (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll reply to both of you here. First, about additional sources for "case-by-case", that was very helpful. I figured one more source would be good enough, so I added the Codex source as citation 11. Thanks. I have mixed feelings about combining the Panchin source into the note about Domingo and Krimsky, and I could go either way about it. It would be easy to do, and I would want to change "But see also:" to "But compare:". On the other hand, an argument can be made that Panchin isn't responding directly to Domingo and Krimsky, per the talk section below this one. Given subsequent talk, what do you think now? Now as for "but" versus "and", I disagree. I really do see it as a "but" situation. It's not a refutation, but it is a caveat that the sources explicitly say. In other words, it's the opposite of the sources saying "there is no evidence of harm and no need for further testing". About the various points about material beyond just this one sentence, I also like an in-depth explanation of Panchin, Krimsky, and so forth later on in the page, but I want to focus on this sentence for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On the note of Panchin not responding directly to Domingo of Krimsky, I don't think we need to consider that aspect. The point I've been focusing on is that each of those three comment on the same aspect of the literature, not each other. We're not looking at saying Domingo and Krimsky said X, but Panchin says they are wrong. Instead, the intent is to say Domingo and Krimsky said studies exist that claim harm, but later review of studies showing harm show the claims are unsupported. Basically, someone said these studies exist, but more in-depth analysis of those studies show they are flawed. Does that clear the intent up a little? My thinking is that with those two studies mentioned, they already have been given ample weight and don’t need to be mentioned within the consensus statement. The But compare option seems like an ok alternative I wouldn't completely disregard either though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your reasoning about that. And I don't feel strongly about this, either way. I'm still wondering whether it is too unclear to readers why we would tell them to compare these three sources. It's clear to you and me, but we have been discussing this in great detail, whereas readers come here with fresh eyes. Whether we use Panchin as a rebuttal source in that way, or not, really does not change the meaning of the text, and the discussion section below draws attention to the limits of using Panchin for this narrow purpose, as opposed to citing it as one more source for the mainstream consensus. A reader can readily understand why Domingo, and especially Krimsky, are in a footnote about "but see also", whereas it is unclear what the pattern is if Panchin is the third member of that note. And, really, I'm not seeing any problem with the sentence giving too much weight to Domingo and Krimsky. For both NPOV and for (relative) editorial peace, I'd just as soon not try too hard to put Domingo and Krimsky down. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll reply to both of you here. First, about additional sources for "case-by-case", that was very helpful. I figured one more source would be good enough, so I added the Codex source as citation 11. Thanks. I have mixed feelings about combining the Panchin source into the note about Domingo and Krimsky, and I could go either way about it. It would be easy to do, and I would want to change "But see also:" to "But compare:". On the other hand, an argument can be made that Panchin isn't responding directly to Domingo and Krimsky, per the talk section below this one. Given subsequent talk, what do you think now? Now as for "but" versus "and", I disagree. I really do see it as a "but" situation. It's not a refutation, but it is a caveat that the sources explicitly say. In other words, it's the opposite of the sources saying "there is no evidence of harm and no need for further testing". About the various points about material beyond just this one sentence, I also like an in-depth explanation of Panchin, Krimsky, and so forth later on in the page, but I want to focus on this sentence for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On the note of Panchin not responding directly to Domingo of Krimsky, I don't think we need to consider that aspect. The point I've been focusing on is that each of those three comment on the same aspect of the literature, not each other. We're not looking at saying Domingo and Krimsky said X, but Panchin says they are wrong. Instead, the intent is to say Domingo and Krimsky said studies exist that claim harm, but later review of studies showing harm show the claims are unsupported. Basically, someone said these studies exist, but more in-depth analysis of those studies show they are flawed. Does that clear the intent up a little? My thinking is that with those two studies mentioned, they already have been given ample weight and don’t need to be mentioned within the consensus statement. The But compare option seems like an ok alternative I wouldn't completely disregard either though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your reasoning about that. And I don't feel strongly about this, either way. I'm still wondering whether it is too unclear to readers why we would tell them to compare these three sources. It's clear to you and me, but we have been discussing this in great detail, whereas readers come here with fresh eyes. Whether we use Panchin as a rebuttal source in that way, or not, really does not change the meaning of the text, and the discussion section below draws attention to the limits of using Panchin for this narrow purpose, as opposed to citing it as one more source for the mainstream consensus. A reader can readily understand why Domingo, and especially Krimsky, are in a footnote about "but see also", whereas it is unclear what the pattern is if Panchin is the third member of that note. And, really, I'm not seeing any problem with the sentence giving too much weight to Domingo and Krimsky. For both NPOV and for (relative) editorial peace, I'd just as soon not try too hard to put Domingo and Krimsky down. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think your suggestion from earlier to use a note is a good one, and could help place them in context. "And contrast," as you used below, might work as well. The cynical side of me isn't really surprised by the objections to Panchin, but I guess that's neither here nor there.
 * With regards to but/and, I do agree that it is/should be a caveat in a sense. My primary concern is that the wording can be interpreted as implying that currently available foods may not have been sufficiently tested, which would go against the sources. A comment on post-market monitoring (of current foods) works, but I'd also prefer wording that makes it clear it's new foods that should be tested, and (explicitly or implicitly) that previous foods already passed that standard. Something like "but that new foods" would probably be fine, assuming the sourcing can support that. Sunrise (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. And yeah, pretty much nothing about these discussions surprises me any more. I'm struggling with the "new" descriptor. It gets complicated to make the sentence say that new GMs need to be tested on a case-by-case basis but old and new should have post-market monitoring – how can "new" be inserted into the sentence? To me, the wording does seem to say implicitly that previous GMs have passed the standard, because it says that the scientific consensus is that they are safe. Put another way, existing food needed to be tested, and was, and passed, and future food needs to be tested too. I'm sympathetic to editors on the other "side" of the discussion, that the scientific consensus does not go so far as saying that existing regulations are sufficient to assure safety in the future. After all, the AMA pretty much says just that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see that version as expressing an implied contradiction, first making the statement on currently available GM foods, then saying that (all) GM foods should (in future) be tested, with the parts in parentheses being one way to interpret the second part of the sentence. I see it mostly as something that could trip readers up if they don't parse the sentence carefully. But adding "before introduction" is a great solution. I also agree that the existing regulations may not be sufficient in the future (I haven't studied that aspect of the subject enough to make a judgement either), and that the consensus doesn't address their suitability. Sunrise (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Neither version is accurate. We should reflect what review studies have said, that no evidence has been found that (currently available) GMO foods are not safe.  GMO advocates want to draw a parallel with climate change science, where there is a consensus. TFD (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which sources are "GMO advocates" here. And to be precise, the sources say that no evidence has been found that (currently available) GMO foods are less safe than conventional foods. But I think my proposal is consistent with that. And as I have been saying repeatedly, I really hope that editors who dislike the proposal here will actually propose alternatives. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "GMO advocates" are people who advocate the use (and government subsidization) of GMO products. As you are aware, the same people who fund climate change skepticism websites that claim there is no scientific consensus for climate change science also fund pro-GMO sites that say there is a consensus that GMO products are safe.  Yet no reliable sources say that.  In the meantime, we should not make claims that are not made in reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was making sure that the "advocates" are not editors, thanks. I note with a smile that some editors (not you) complain loudly when others compare their arguments about GMOs being unsafe to the arguments that are made to cast doubt on climate change (as happened recently at ANI), but then I see editors comparing arguments that GMOs are safe to climate change denial. Apparently it's an underhanded attack when it goes in one POV direction, but speaking The TruthTM when it goes in the other direction. But anyway – I agree enthusiastically with you that we ought not to cite scientific claims to advocacy websites funded surreptitiously by industry interests. Agreed, absolutely. So, for that reason, what I am proposing here does not do that at all. All the sources are from scientists, not advocacy groups. And I even omitted sources written by scientists who might have financial ties to industry interests. All reliable sources here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * oppose both Both are syntactically incorrect, the "but should be etc..." needs to be a new sentence, and it should explain clearly what's meant by "case by case." And, let's also be clear that consensus is centred on the concept of substantial equivalence, that GE food products are as safe as their conventional counterparts. Omitting the significance of SE here is problematic. We also need to mention the WHO advisory that "where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM food." Semitransgenic  talk. 18:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm friendly to adding something about post-market monitoring. I also am fine with going into detail about SE somewhere on the page, although I see diminishing returns about trying to fit everything into the lead. About "both", the first version is simply what the page says now. As I've said repeatedly already, it's already clear that editors are going to oppose one approach or another, so getting a version that satisfies everyone here is never going to happen. Please propose alternative versions, with specific wording and sourcing, so they can be compared side-by-side. And not a whole treatise, just a sentence or two.


 * That said, what do editors who basically agree with my suggested change above think about expanding the last phrase of the sentence, from: "but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.." to: "but should be tested on a case-by-case basis and undergo adequate post-market monitoring.."? I would support that change. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * there is another potentially confusing aspect here with the "but" thing, I can see where some readers - and this is not as stupid as it sounds - might view "food on the market derived from GM crops etc....but should be tested on a case by case basis" as a statement that suggests every single food product containing GMOs, of one description or another, is safety tested. This is an article about crops, what we should be saying in the lead is: they grow stuff, that stuff is tested to see if it meets SE requirements, if it does, consensus deems it safe enough to be used in food products consumed by humans etc. Semitransgenic  talk. 18:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It took me a bit of thought to see what you meant, but I do now understand, and I agree with you. Thinking about what has been discussed so far, and not having heard replies to some of the questions that I asked, I now revise my suggestion to:

Revised proposal


 * But, again, I request that editors who want a different approach actually make a full proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a partial restatement of my point from above. I'm fine with this version, but I'd like the wording to clarify the distinction between current and new/hypothetical foods in the second part of the sentence. Maybe something like, "but that new foods should be tested on a tested on a case-by-case basis, and that already-approved foods should undergo post-market monitoring." The phrasing is awkward there, but we can probably find better ways to communicate the same idea. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 23:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I just inserted "before introduction,". Does that work? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks! I just added "that each" for grammatical unambiguity (but feel free to revert that if there's any issue). I'll fully support this version. :-) <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 01:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I, in turn, added "GMO" after "each", to hopefully make it clearer (and welcome to writing-by-committee!). I hope that's not a problem (and if by chance we end up leaving out the post-market part, then that will simplify it). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course, no problem at all! Do you think "GM food" might be more accurate than GMO? For environmental issues I assume they're testing at the level of the organism, but for food safety I thought it's the specific food that gets assessed - e.g. if a plant's leaves produce a new pesticide then the testing would primarily focus on whether that compound is found on the fruits. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 03:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought about saying "GM food" instead, and what led me to "GMO" was that the page is about crops, not food. But maybe that's moot, since this sentence could end up on multiple pages, and the sentence in question is indeed about food instead of farm safety, so I'm leaning towards agreeing with that change. And two questions: Given what some editors are saying about objecting to the part about post-market monitoring, how do you feel about leaving that out? And I would like to add a second sentence, that would be pretty much the same as Tsavage's third sentence, below, about public skepticism. Would that be OK with you? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (Fairly long response, so I've put my comment below.) <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 04:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I like the before introduction part. However, post-marketing part has a lot of nuance to in sources such as "where appropriate", etc. I'd drop the part about post-market monitoring as that doesn't get extensive coverage in sources. Best not to include special cases in summary level statements, but leave the content open enough to be explained by the cited sources and any subsequent development in articles content later on. We don't need to explain everything in this sentence, so that's why have more of a preference for just sticking with the case-by-case language as we had before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am all in favor of bringing out more details in the main text. But you keep putting me in a position where I have you insisting on a very pure representation of the science, and other editors demanding that we present all the caveats about the science. I would prefer to err on the side of not risking oversimplification of the statement that there is a scientific consensus of safety, and I don't think that the language about post-market is incorrect, and WHO does talk about it explicitly. Then again, just below, David T. also calls for leaving out the post-market stuff, so I'm going to watch and see how this shakes out. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * nah, it's shit, where is "but that each needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction, and to undergo post-market monitoring" even mentioned in the main body of text? cart before horse. Write the content, than summarise it in the lead. Failure to deal with substantial equivalence here is also a serious omission. Semitransgenic  talk. 18:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I am fine with adding the part that the WHO calls for the need for pre-market case-by-case testing and post-market assessment to the body of the article in the health section. Maybe we can make progress by adding material in the body first. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "nah, it's shit": Duly noted that you said that. In light of this talk page being subject to DS, the next time that happens, I will take you to AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * David, I still hope that you are working on an alternative version of the sentence in the lead, and I look forward to being able to compare it with what I propose. Given all the drama that has occurred over the sentence saying scientific consensus or agreement, I feel strongly that we need to solve the issue of what the sentence should say, and I do not want to wait and wait for the page as a whole to be rewritten. Furthermore, the lead sentence appears in so many other pages that the issue needs to be resolved regardless of how this particular page might be revised. As for the WHO caveats, it seems to me to misrepresent the scientific consensus to leave it out. At the same time, I'm fine with expanding on the summary in the main text. Just above, I see KingofAces wanting to leave out post-market monitoring, so if editors with a variety of perspectives want to leave it out, I might still do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And just to clarify, I'm in favor of leaving post-marketing out of summary level content, not content in the main body. I'm mainly trying to keep a focus on concise summary level content that anchors the smaller ideas that can be fleshed out later. If we don't give RfC respondents something concise with just a few main ideas in the sentence, they're not going to be able to make heads or tails of it all when going through sources. Best stick with core ideas first and figure out what follows after we have something to center them on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

arbitrary break
(continuing discussion from a few paragraphs up, replying to Tryptofish) I don't feel strongly about keeping or removing the part about post-market monitoring. For the third sentence, do you mean "Nonetheless, there is significant public mistrust of GM food and the science supporting it"? I haven't been following that section too closely, but I'd probably support including that information in some form. If we use the Pew survey, it's probably better to present it as a contrast between scientists and the general public (I think that would help provide a transition and maintain the context from the preceding sentence as well, then we can follow up with the list of reasons for opposition). The simplest change I'd support would be to change it to "Nonetheless, there is significant public opposition to GM food" - removing "and the science supporting it" since I don't think it's verified by those sources, e.g. the mention of "mistrust" in the second source seems to refer to mistrust of regulators and the government, not scientists. (Also replacing "mistrust" with "opposition" to make the statement more concrete, but that's less important.)

A change acknowledging the difference might be something like this (rough example, same sources we're discussing): There is a scientific consensus[1][2][3][4] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[5][6][7][8] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[9][10] Nonetheless, members of the public are much more likely than scientists to perceive GM food as unsafe, with a 2015 Pew survey finding a gap of 51 percentage points.[11][12] This version avoids the word "significant" - addition of something concrete (the poll result) makes its vagueness less of a concern, though there's still a potential confusion with statistical significance. It might also be better to avoid words like "nonetheless" in this case, since the previous sentence already contains a contrast (indicated by "but"), so it's grammatically ambiguous which part of the sentence the new statement is a contrast to. Of course, this is all contingent on sources, e.g. I'd drop the New Yorker source and replace it with a scientific paper (maybe, for example). We could probably also find a sourceable statement about the results of this difference, like "...public opposition to GM foods has led to bans in countries such as [insert countries]." <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 04:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that bans should be mentioned and I really don't understand why Kingofaces deleted my mention of it and why bans are not mentioned anywhere in this article or the GM food article. It is certainly notable: Bloomberg, CNBC, The Guardian, BBC, Time, The Nation, Reuters, Scientific American, Moscow Times, more Bloomberg, more Reuters and others,  , . I do not think it is appropriate to say the bans are "because of public opposition".  The RS that I have reviews says that there are bans but does not say because of opposition.  Opinion pieces like this are not WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, both of you. I got to this via the discussion in the talk section just below, where I asked whether Tsavage would be interested in merging his proposal together with mine. He hasn't replied yet, and I recognize that editors may in any case disagree with the language in my proposal about scientific consensus – and that's fine if we disagree for now. And again, I would welcome competing proposals. But, in any case, these discussions are giving me what I think are good ideas that I will want to incorporate into my own proposal, regardless of what other proposals may emerge.


 * So, yes, I meant that sentence about public mistrust. And I've been starting to work on finding more and better sources for it, so there's plenty of room for revising the exact wording of that sentence. And I don't feel strongly about including or not including the post-market marketing bit, so unless other editors feel strongly that they want to omit it, I'd rather keep it in order to not overstate the "pro-GMO" "side" of the issue.


 * And, as I was thinking about the second proposal's language about safety being based on decisions by regulatory agencies, it got me thinking about those countries where the government decision is against GM crops, and I think that we should make that clear. So, as it happens, I was already coming to the conclusion that I would like a sentence about that, which is very much in line with what David just said.


 * So I'm starting to think of this as a three-sentence, rather than one-sentence, proposal. I'm thinking sentence one would be what I have been working on above, about scientific consensus. Sentence two would be about bans etc., along the lines of what David is suggesting. And sentence three would be about public perceptions. Obviously, I haven't yet fleshed out the second and third proposed sentences, but I will start working on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What you are proposing would be a big improvement over what we have now, as long as Domingo & Krimsky are included in sentence #1. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, David. I am very happy to hear that. You can see above how my current version cites Domingo and Krimsky. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

First proposal revised
Sorry it took me a while to do this, but here is my revised version of the proposal:



What do editors think? If anyone objects strongly, please offer alternative proposals with as much specificity as here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 5 references for the differing views of the public and scientists seems excessive, especially as the refs as written seem to apply to a single Pew pole. 2 or at most 3 should be sufficient.Dialectric (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wondering about that myself. Some of those might better be taken to the main text, instead of the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we might want to write the sentence differently. I'm not sure that we need the details about the Pew poll; I put it there following a suggestion by Sunrise that we say something numerically specific instead of making a general statement, but I could also see making the sentence more general. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is in the lead then I would leave out the numbers for the Pew poll altogether. They would fit better in the body. AIR corn (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning that way, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like it would be best to leave the poll details out of that sentence, so:

All I did was to shorten that sentence and remove one source at the end of that sentence; I didn't change anything else. I would like very much to see whether or not we have a consensus to move forward, so I look forward to hearing what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm on board with this. However, I think we can add the last sentence without an RfC, and that would also help keep an RfC on the scientific consensus information from losing focus. Scientific consensus, public perception, and policy might be biting off too much for that. If we get to the point of an RfC, I'd rather present something as concise as we can without tangential content that really isn't disputed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I agree with you. As for the additional sentences, I've got them there for the time being, because what I have seen of other potential proposals in this talk (albeit in very preliminary form) has also been multi-sentence and has also covered all of these points. However, it is unclear to me at this time whether or not other editors would still like to present other proposals, so it is likewise unclear whether or not we will need an RfC. If anyone is planning to develop competing proposals, it would be great if they would say so, and I'd be happy to wait for them to do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this version. The second part isn't quite what I'd write, but all things considered the differences are minor. :-) The additional sources for the gap in safety perception are helpful, and now that they're added I don't mind removing the specific number. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 05:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree about adding the last sentence without further ado, and have written a section Talk:Genetically modified crops here to make sure there are no objections. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * After reviewing this version and the sourcing, it is closer to what I have read in the RS than anything else I have seen proposed. (I definitely prefer this more concise wording on public perception.)  However, one issue is that the sentences do not reflect what is in all the sources.  Krimsky and Domingo are cited but their opinions are not reflected in the text.  A couple of other points:
 * (1) The FAO source makes an important point that there are possible unintended problems with GMO's compared to conventional foods:


 * The lack of evidence of negative effects, however, does not mean that new transgenic foods are without risk (ICSU, GM Science Review Panel). Scientists acknowledge that not enough is known about the long-term effects of transgenic (and most traditional) foods. It will be difficult to detect long-term effects because of many confounding factors such as the underlying genetic variability in foods and problems in assessing the impacts of whole foods. Furthermore, newer, more complex genetically transformed foods may be more difficult to assess and may increase the possibility of unintended effects. [emphasis added].


 * A summary of this paragraph should be in the proposal (and the Domingo ref could be attached to that summary as well.)
 * (2) The Pamela Ronald ref should be removed for reasons I (and others) have previously stated, and because of citation overkill.
 * I confess that I did not read everything by every contributor above and below on these many proposals, since so much of this has been rehashed so many times before and it gets exhausting.   --David Tornheim (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, David, for your thoughtful examination, and thank you also for the points on which we agree. However, I personally disagree (strongly!) with all of the changes that you have proposed, and based on earlier discussions with other editors here, I think that many of the editors who support Proposal 1 would also object. (For example, there was specific discussion of mentioning Krimsky and Domingo in the main text, and several editors strongly rejected doing so.) In my opinion, it would actually be very helpful to having a good RfC if there were one more proposal, that alters Proposal 1 in the ways that you propose. It would be very helpful in laying out the areas where editors have disagreed, to a greater extent than the three existing proposals would. Would you like to put it forth as Proposal 4? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Are other editors planning to propose other versions? Do any other editors object to this proposal? I know that this discussion has been announced on multiple pages, so anyone interested has had the opportunity to follow this discussion. If no one is going to object or to propose something else, then there will come a time at which I will want to implement this proposal. But I would welcome other proposals. If anyone just says that they want to take it in a different direction, I will be happy to wait for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I still don't agree that the sources support the wording, scientific consensus. I think discussion has gone quiet because you were working on this version. I believe there is support for broad agreement that no harm has been documented to date. We should start a clear new section, doesn't have to be formal RfC, and put in this final wording you have to get new input.


 * My proposal for a safety SUMMARY in the lead, still stands, that safety is determined where GM food is available, by government regulation generally based on substantial equivalence. A summary of the scientific findings should be done in plain English - "majority of studies of X kind, etc, find..." etc - but not use scientific consensus. No facts are being obscured, it is an issue of balanced, neutral presentation. That's my opinion. --Tsavage (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * At this point, I don't really expect to further revise this proposal based on further discussion. It's been discussed enough at the drafting stage. If you disagree with it, please present an alternative proposal that will be ready for comparison in a formal RfC. How long would you like to have, to work on it? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Gimme a day, and I'll include a sentence saying something like, "A majority of the scientific research to date indicates that no harm has been found, for instance, a review of 1700 studies...concluded that "quote'", which would be in a paragraph with the existing "regulation based on substantial equivalence" wording that I already posted a while ago.


 * For the record, discussion seems to have been so chilled and overshadowed by the strife in this topic area - ongoing endless argument over relatively small details, constant attempts to characterize editors as in some way bad, and now the continual threat of summary sanctions under DS - that it feels like normal healthy editorial debate, to be expected in coverage of such a real-world controversial subject, has been stifled. The idea of seeking consensus on any content seems hollow. --Tsavage (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I was just reviewing your WP:RS and quotes. #7 for the AMA uses this URL. Although you correctly quoted the text from the URL, the quoted text incorrectly summarizes information in the AMA report. I believe the summary is not from the AMA but by those who own the website, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, a promoter of GE. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's a very good catch! I have revised the citation (#7), only in the most recent version of Proposal 1, but not anywhere else. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I just added a new footnote, number 11. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have expanded footnote 4, by lengthening the Domingo quote and by adding a new source that disputes Domingo. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Second proposal revised
Didn't need a day. Here's my take on a GM food safety summary for the lead. I do think that we should be concentrating on improving these articles for a period of time, and then bringing the leads in line, rather than launching another RfC over this one statement. For one, this allows time to cover the summary statements and sources in more depth in the articles proper, where currently there may be little or no mention. --Tsavage (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * UPDATED: The following is a revised version of the original proposal. Note that quotes from some of the sources have been included in the citations to facilitate verification. --Tsavage (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)



This is all mainstream, non-controversial information, as are the sources (at least, for this use; the Nicolia review may be disputed in some quarters), and I believe there are multiple alternative RS sources for all statements. --Tsavage (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! I expect that we will have a formal process for the community to choose among these proposals. Other editors: please indicate if you are planning to present additional proposals. As for the second proposal, a criticism that occurs to me, and that you may want to consider, is that there are multiple governmental regulatory agencies that have banned or restricted GM crops, so it may not be accurate to say what you have in the first sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to look at the first sentence based on the two references. In the first reference (ICS) says:
 * Currently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat. Food safety assessments by national regulatory agencies in several countries have deemed currently available GM foods to be as safe to eat as their conventional counter parts and suitable for human consumption.
 * The second source WHO says:
 * GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health.
 * Our proposed sentence is:
 * Genetically modified foods, where available, have been assessed for safety by the respective national regulatory agencies, which have determined them to be as safe to eat as conventional food.
 * Most of these suffer from circularity (or redundancy). Here is why:  It is the job of food regulatory agencies to protect food safety.  If they approve the food for consumption, by definition they have deemed it to be safe.  So, the mere fact that it is available as food without warning labels tells us that they approved it and that they deem it to be safe.  So, really all that is being said in the various 3 quotes is that these regulatory agencies have deemed some GMO products to be safe, and the authors of the statements agree (or do not take issue) with those assessments, but they hide behind some wish-washy language.   Also, when I see a comparison of the safety of GMO food to conventional food, I detect an attempt to argue for or against labeling.
 * All that needs to be said is "Regulatory agencies in N countries have deemed X GMO foods as safe to eat" (straightforward and indisputable NPOV fact--the number for N and X could be identified in specificity or as "few", "some", a "number" or whatever is appropriate). And the ICS and WHO (and perhaps a # of other entities) agree with those assessments.  Also, I do not see any of this as a contradiction to the fact that  some countries ban GMO's--those countries are not necessarily saying that the GMO's that have been approved are "unsafe".  That's all for now... --David Tornheim (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This one appears to violate WP:FRINGE as it's ignoring that the scientific consensus even exists and undue focus solely on regulatory agenecies rather than the scientific consensus as whole. We just reference the scientific community as whole rather than this sudden focus on just regulatory agencies to remove the consensus language. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm planning to move forward with the RfC in the near future, so I have taken the liberty of modifying this per what you said in, by substituting the phrase "in countries where they are approved" and slightly changing the "and determined to be" language. I did not make any other changes. Please check what is here, and correct anything that needs to be corrected.



Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

NB: The FIRST instance of this proposal, at the top of this section, is the updated and current version, as noted there! --Tsavage (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Second proposal
Earlier discussion moved up to here by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC) what I would say, sources exist for all of this:  Semitransgenic  talk. 20:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest getting that down to a single sentence, given that it is in the lead – or at least make it very clear how it would fit into the lead. Also, you need to present it with full sourcing, because otherwise there just cannot be a comparison. And you may want to work with David T, who says he is also preparing an alternative version. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * squashing what you guys want to say into a single sentence does not serve our ends, it's a distraction. Relative to the length of the article, the lead is quite short, nothing lost in saying what needs to be said with more words. This particular article is about crops, as you know, there's another one we have about food, so the food use aspect here is subsidiary, but, how we get from the GE crops to the GM food should be clearly explained in the lead. Maybe remember who most of the readers are, they don't know as much as you. Semitransgenic  talk. 20:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How would you make it fit with what currently comes right after? "GM crops also provide a number of ecological benefits.[15] However, opponents have objected to GM crops on several grounds, including environmental concerns, whether food produced from GM crops is safe, whether GM crops are needed to address the world's food needs, and concerns raised by the fact these organisms are subject to intellectual property law." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What comes directly before: "A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that GM technology adoption had reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%.[4] Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.[4]" --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll tell you how, you rewrite the entire lead so it actually does what it's supposed to do: summarise the article by touching on the main content headings. Example, the 'history' section, how is this properly represented in the lead? for instance is a fact like "the first genetically modified crop plant was produced in 1982" worth noting upfront? main types of modification? or mention of something as important as Bacillus thuringiensis? we could go on. Basically, the lead is woefully inadequate, getting one sentence fixed will not address this. Semitransgenic  talk. 23:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, and I'm open to doing that. But show me; don't just tell me. I'm not going to rewrite the whole thing myself. So I think you should, perhaps with other editors, draft an entire new lead, with complete sourcing, and propose it here in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * and you highlight yet another problem. If a main body is properly referenced, lead summaries of that content should not require citations. So perhaps the issue is with the actual article and not simply the lead? Semitransgenic  talk. 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing it, but feel free to propose whatever you want to propose. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * so you are not seeing the lack of any coverage of safety testing in a section other than "controversy" as problematic?
 * Or that the words "substantial equivalence" appear once throughout (the last two words of the entire article)?
 * And you do know there is actually no mention of "case-by-case" in the main text, right? So you are summarising something that isn't even mentioned in the article?
 * And lets look at the proportionality issue.
 * Article prose size (text only): 5922 words "readable prose size."
 * Lead prose size: 337 words
 * Consensus/safety sentence in lead: 32 words
 * Consensus/safety sentence in main body: 24 words
 * You don't see it? too busy politicking to actually build an accurate article I guess. Semitransgenic  talk. 13:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, these things are plain to see. To repeat myself from Genetically modified food a few days ago:

Per policy, Wikipedia should say exactly what reliable sources say, in easily verifiable language, avoiding original interpretation, which includes synthesis of multiple sources to arrive at an original conclusion. And the lead of a developed article should only summarize key points in the text, and not introduce new material not in the text. It's pretty straightforward.

As for the scientific consensus/agreement statement: Given the above, editors continue to pursue that one specific wording, which seems to draw everyone who wishes to edit around the GM topic into dispute, or warns them away.
 * a single sentence that's been disputed for the past 3-1/2 years.
 * a single sentence that consumes much time and energy, and causes disruption
 * what is being argued over is not inclusion or exclusion of information
 * the debate/dispute is over choice of which words to use in an optional summary sentence
 * last RfC, argued for nearly two months and closed only six months ago, involved over 30 editors reviewing some 18 sources
 * they did not come close to agreement on sourcing for "scientific consensus" wording

Read the Global warming lead, it clearly and unequivocally presents two different, strong scientific agreements in the first seven sentences, without using the "consensus" word, and imo communicates much better, more informatively and neutrally, without it.

I would like to get back to normal incremental editing, and improve articles like this one that is way substandard, and not have a perennial dispute over a single optional phrase sucking up all of the oxygen. Simple, straightforward, common sense. This is supposed to be what Wikipedia is about. --Tsavage (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope that you don't agree with the part about me supposedly being "too busy politicking to actually build an accurate article". Nice, real nice.


 * There is a sentence in the lead of this page, and in the lead sections of multiple other pages, that says that there is a "general scientific agreement". And there is clearly a need to address all the concerns about that sentence. I'm all in favor of making sure that the material is also covered in the main text. But the fact that some of it hasn't yet been added to the main text is no reason to wiki-lawyer that it must be omitted from the lead, when it's already there in some form, and has been discussed at such great length even in a previous RfC. I've presented a well-sourced proposal for an improved version of the sentence in question. I've invited other editors to present alternative proposals. And I still would welcome such alternatives. I'm getting the impression, and I really hope that I'm mistaken, that editors are getting cold feet about proposing an alternative sentence, and are trying to change the subject. In any case, I still think that it is necessary to say, in the lead, that there is such a scientific consensus, and I urge editors who disagree to propose alternative lead sentences. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I proposed alternative wording several days ago in GM food Talk. Here it is again, with more context.


 * 1. The practical purpose of The Sentence in the lead is to give readers an idea of the safety of GM food. No doubt the lead is used by some readers as a quick reference, without reference to the rest of the article, so there seems to be a practical value in answering such an obvious GMO question in the lead of at least the main articles, like GM foods and GM crops (temporarily putting aside WP:LEAD guidelines).


 * 2. The science behind food safety assessment falls into two distinct groups: the science that informs the legal availability of GM foods (iow, the science that literally determines that the food on the shelves is safe), and the ongoing research into various aspects of GMO safety. The Sentence represents the latter.


 * In fixing the safety information in the lead, we are not limited to, and shouldn't be primarily concerned with, the ongoing research, we should include a statement about the science that is most relevant to food that is currently available.


 * My proposed wording, to replace the agreement statement in the lead is (from GM foods Talk, posted several days ago):


 * Currently available genetically modified foods have been assessed for safety by national regulatory agencies in several countries and are thus considered to be as safe to eat as conventional food. In addition, there is no evidence to date of harm caused by eating GM food. Nonetheless, there is significant public mistrust of GM food and the science supporting it.
 * It clearly states the official mainstream safety position, and indicates what it is based on. It also presents the sharply contrasting opinion of a significant segment of the public. The safety case is properly portrayed as being based on regulation, which determines the applicable science. It is fully international in scope. It also provides a natural lead-in to coverage of regulation, the science behind (legal) safety assessment (which begins with substantial equivalence), differences between countries, and public perception. It's easily verifiable in the cited sources, and there are other sources that can additionally or alternatively support the text.


 * To cover ongoing research, a "Scientific opinion" section in articles where it is relevant makes sense, and that is where we can place The Sentence while it is adjusted. --Tsavage (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I do not think anyone would object to the third sentence of what you have there, and I would be willing to accept it as a second sentence of my own proposal. For purposes of easier comparison, please let me reformat your first two sentences as the other proposals have been:


 * So we have that, which is certainly a good possibility to consider, and we also have what Semitransgenic put above, which lacks sources. I'm not sure how I feel about saying that they "have been assessed for safety by national regulatory agencies in several countries and are thus considered to be...", because it oversimplifies the scientific process to some extent. They are not "considered to be..." only because of the decisions of regulatory agencies – governments officially consider them that way for that reason, but scientists also consider them that way, and it's not because of government decisions. But again, I am in full agreement with your third sentence (that I left out here), and I would be happy to add it as a second sentence to my own proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. The third sentence is an integral part of that food safety statement. This is a general encyclopedia, context is everything. Food is literally on the market - "currently available" - (and in some places, currently unavailable) based on regulation, the government, by the people, for the people, and public opinion factors strongly into the equation. Isn't that the argument against current biotech restrictions, it's because of the public's wrongheaded views? Trying to cover safety consideration primarily from an abstract, theoretical scientific assessment ignores the social context. It is one aspect, but clearly not the overriding aspect in the real world. Wikipedia is not here to reflect its own reality.


 * 2. "thus considered" - As in/better: ...by national regulatory agencies in several countries, which have determined them to be as safe as.... And we are not leaving out scientific opinion, we are summarizing the main reality. When people support or oppose an aspect of GMOs or biotech in general, it is about legislation and regulation, which incorporates a very specific subset of relevant science. In a summary, we should start with what us the most important and directly relevant. --Tsavage (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with you very much about that third sentence, and the more I think about it, the more I am in favor of including it, no matter what else we might say. So I'm likely to add it also to my own proposal. As for the regulatory agencies, I'm inclined to think that this is something that will best be dealt with by formal RfC, because I think including or not including the scientific material is going to be one of those things where involved editors will have unmovable opinions. But personally, I still think it's a losing proposition to frame it in terms of regulation, because, thinking about it further, it occurs to me that there are numerous nations where the regulations make GM foods prohibited, and thus a blanket statement that regulatory agencies have determined this, even with a qualifying phrase about it being "several countries" rather than most, becomes a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The point is, it is regulation that determines currently available food, not general scientific opinion, now or at any time in the last 15-20 years since the prevailing regulations in various countries have been in place, therefore, it is misleading to say that or to give that impression.


 * Currently available food is considered safe because of safety assessments based on substantial equivalence. The directly relevant science is the concept of substantial equivalence, and related aspects like selection of comparison plant, targeted testing, the methods used for that testing, natural variation, and any issues surrounding those topics. Roughly speaking, that would appear to be the first level of GMO safety science that readers should be made aware of.


 * Scientific opinion is also important, in proper context. If strong indication of harm appeared, then the regulations would have to change, but until that point, saying, for example, 523 rat feeding studies all find no harm, is NOT directly relevant to the fact that GMO food is "currently available."


 * The summary I proposed can be easily tweaked to address your concern, for example:


 * Genetically modified foods, where available, have been assessed for safety by the respective national regulatory agencies, which have determined them to be as safe to eat as conventional food.[1][2] In addition, there is no evidence to date of harm caused by eating GM food.[2] Nonetheless, there is significant public mistrust of GM food and the science supporting it.[3][4]


 * The point to be conveyed is that the regulations determine both the science and the availability, scientific opinion does not determine availability, so to suggest that is misleading and non-neutral. We need to have the main statement first, about regulation and substantial equivalence, not just the scientific opinion statement. --Tsavage (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That revision, with "where available", does help, thanks. I'm wondering whether we could actually merge your proposal with mine. How would you feel about having three sentences: the first sentence would be your first sentence, the second would be mine (thus replacing your second sentence), and the third sentence would be your first sentence? If there is any chance that we could get a consensus version, that would certainly save a lot of drama. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If we are approaching this discussion similar to the last RfC, this content is eventually going into not only the lede, but other sections within the articles where this gets mentioned. It wouldn't be only in the lede. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So, if editors show strong objections grounded in WP:PAG that the proposed change is WP:OR, WP:SYN, not NPOV and a PR statement from industry to advocate for the technology, and that there is no consensus for your language as was the case for the 2nd RFC, you are just planning to ignore what the other editors' objections and put the material in the article anyway and ignore the process? --David Tornheim (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not hearing KingofAces saying that he intends to "put the material in the article" unilaterally. And I do not intend to do it, which is why I am carefully discussing it in talk. At the same time, David, you previously said that you were working on an alternative proposal. So I look forward to seeing it. As for how material will get into the page, I have every intention of asking ArbCom to order a community process for choosing amongst the various proposals, as they did previously at the Jerusalem page. And I am not going to wait overly long before I make that request, so I think it's a good idea to propose an alternative sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Attention editors
I realize that some editors may disagree with language that says that there is a scientific consensus, or language that says that GMOs are considered safe, etc. That's fine, and we can work with differences of opinion. But there is going to be an RfC, one that will probably be binding, that will choose between the two proposals above as well as any others. So if you want to present other versions to be considered, you need to present them. If you indicate here that you are planning to work on that, I'll be happy to give you the time that you need, but if no one responds, I will be going to ArbCom fairly soon, to ask for the RfC – so editors who disagree need to act on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I will work on an alternative. Please give me (or anyone else who wants to make another proposal) a reasonable deadline. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Please take as much time as you need. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that I am going to move forward with the RfC process pretty soon, so any more proposals or changes to existing proposals ought to be presented soon as well. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Third Proposal (a non-SYNTH, sourced, one-liner)
 petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm going to add your source to the sentence in the first proposal, about differences in regulation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Time is not a reliable source for the scientific community's opinion, especially when we have much more reliable sources saying otherwise. Additionally, saying the community holds a variety of opinions on a subject when a scientific consensus exists runs contrary to WP:FRINGE (see climate change and attempts to say that consensus doesn't exist because X people disagree as an example). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Myself, I agree with you. But I think that it will be beneficial for the community to see this in an RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Revised



 * Notes:
 * With this edit, I deleted the sentence about public opinion. I do not object to the text of the sentence in the lede and/or body (I did not review whether the chosen RS is optimal and whether it considers world-wide or just U.S. opinions.)  Public opinion is a different matter and formed in a completely different way than the opinions coming from scientific, regulatory and other major professional or NGO organizations.  --David Tornheim (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * With this edit, I simplified this:
 * The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.
 * to
 * Regulation of GM foods varies widely by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them.
 * Regulations covers legislation. "Widely" needs only to be stated once.  However, I do notice that the second use of widely might have been to note the large differences in regulatory approval process between countries that do permit them, e.g. between E.U. and U.S.  I will see if I can find a way to incorporate than in the language and I am open to suggestions on how to say it concisely.
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't have any suggestions about "widely", and I'm sure that we will go with whatever you (and anyone else) settle upon here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still working on this version. I plan to make changes to the first sentence.  I intend to finish by Monday morning. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I will probably move ahead Monday after you have done that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * More Notes:
 * 3. With this edit, I removed Panchin. Panchin is a single study (not cited by any other article according to Google Scholar ) and only reviews a handful of studies using a specific statistical analysis tool Bonferroni correction.  (compare this with Domingo (2011) which is cited 155 times ).  David Tornheim (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. My rewrite is done. Let me know if there are any typos or suggestions for improvement. David Tornheim (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, David. I've looked it over, and I'm not going to suggest any substantive changes, given that I basically disagree. But in terms of typos, what I can see are some stray square brackets in citations 5 and 7, and I see places where citations are before punctuation such as commas, but MOS says the cites should come after. I'll leave things another day or so, also because I haven't yet heard back from Tsavage, and then I'll go ahead. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback and thanks for letting me make the corrects. (I do wish our diff software was better so that small changes make small diffs!)  I'll get to work on that.  One thing I did notice when preparing this is that when the  template is used, for reports from organizations, the title goes first, then the organization.  I have seen others put the organization first, then title, which reads cleaner to me.  I have been tempted to take out the  templates for FAO and a few others for this reason, but I think it is better form to use the templates for standardization, so software like AFW can work more easily with them, etc.  Any thoughts on this?  I haven't looked at MLA or APA to see what the preferred form is--maybe the template is technically correct.  But maybe we could use another template? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are of course very welcome, and after all, the goal here is to make Wikipedia better. You still have a square bracket at the beginning of cite 7. As for the cite templates, I think what happens is that the "author" parameter comes first, whereas the "publisher" parameter comes after the title. Anyway, the practice on WP is that what matters is using whatever cite template or format consistently within a page, so it's fine to use cite templates consistently. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I know I said I wouldn't make any substantive suggestions, but some things subsequently occurred to me, so I'll suggest them and leave you time to deal with them if you want. Of course, these are only suggestions, so you are free to disagree. One issue that occurs to me is that you tend to make it sound like there is one kind of theory established in the US and a different one established in Europe – some editors may feel that you have gone beyond the source material and done some WP:SYNTH in saying that. I think a second and bigger issue is that the editorial discussion and the context on the pages has been specifically about whether or not GM foods are safe to eat. Some of the sources that you cite as arguing that they might not be reliably safe to eat actually base their concerns more on other issues, such as economic or ecological impacts, and your proposed text is not clear about the distinctions. The other three proposals focus specifically on the food safety issue, and I think editors really do not disagree that our pages should indeed cover the non-food-safety concerns at the appropriate places on the page. I know that I would support covering that elsewhere, and I don't see any scientific controversy about those other things. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. Question.  When you say, "Some of the sources that you cite as arguing that they might not be reliably safe to eat actually base their concerns more on other issues, such as economic or ecological impacts, and your proposed text is not clear about the distinctions."  I am confused about what you are referring to when you say that GM food might be unsafe because of economic or ecological impacts.  Can you give an example or a quote and the sources you mean?  I have seen an argument by an Argentinian scientist that was like that but I don't remember seeing it in the sources I used above. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When I read cites 6, 7, and 8, and to a lesser extent 5, it seemed like most of the reasons they gave for being cautious or critical about GMOs were those non-food-safety kinds of issues. And yet you seem to be presenting those sources as being primarily concerned that testing for food safety is not adequate. Even for source 5, which does discuss food safety in a lot of detail, the quote you give isn't that the foods are not safe, but rather that there might be a "lack of evidence of any benefit", and the concerns were about "the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects." That does of course include food safety and health, but it places concerns other than food safety first. Here, we will be having an RfC that isn't really about farming and environment problems with GMOs, which are separate issues, which are not widely disputed by scientists, and which editors do not seem to object to presenting on our pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that sources [5], [6] and [8] do mention the other concerns like the environment among their reasons for a moratorium on GMOs ([5],[8]) and/or criticism of regulators/regulation ([6],[7]). But there is no question that within each of the sources there is a clear disagreement with the kind of language found in the American sources in sentence 1 about the adequacy of current regulations in assuring GM food safety and their disagreement over the "substantial equivalence" method and preference for "Precautionary Principle". I do agree with you that health is a subset of concerns discussed in those sources and agree that the other issues should be in our article as well (if not already there), but as you said the paragraph of these proposals is focused on food safety, so that is the aspect of the sources I referred to. My chosen quote included the other concerns so that readers were not mislead into believing that the ONLY reason for the call for a moratorium was food safety, but the totality of the concerns. But unquestionably food safety was a concern, which shows that the BMA holds a very different position about GM food safety assessment compared to the American orgs like the AAAS. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, it was only a suggestion. I trust then that you consider this version to be final. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll move forward tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Original Version
I'd like to move forward with this process, so I have taken the liberty of creating this first draft of what could be Proposal 4, based upon what you said at. Per what you said there, I made three changes with respect to Proposal 1:
 * 1) I put "but see also" language about Domingo and Krimsky into the main text, instead of the footnote.
 * 2) I added the language about "it may be difficult to evaluate possible unintended effects", based on the FAO and Domingo sources.
 * 3) I deleted the Pamela Ronald source.

One can file this under "WP:WFTE", because I personally oppose this proposal, but I also recognize that some editors will want to have a proposal like this one considered, and I want to make sure that your perspectives get a fair hearing. Please check it over carefully, and make any needed corrections.



Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's not far. I will revise it slightly above.  I am starting with the original and will edit that, so you can see what I changed. --David Tornheim 14:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment above about the AMA quote. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I fixed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Fifth proposal: Controversy Section Doesn't mention GMO benefits cited by prestigous scientific organizations
Continues from, below.

Firstly thanks to all editors for so much effort over this point. I am new to contributing to a Talk section on Wikipedia. I hope I get the protocol for contribution right. I read through the "Genetically Modified Crops" article recently and exactly the sentence that is being discussed at such length drew my attention. My concern is that the "Controversy Section" does not mention that very prestigious and authoratitive sources atribute benefits to the use of GMOs. There are benefits in the medical sector in better medicines, and in the agriculture and food sectors, benefits to farmers, the environment and to consumers are cited. The mention of benefits is important because any perceived risk must be balanced against benefits for a proper evaluation. As it is now, the Controversy section mentions concerns on "long-term impact on human health", "contamination of the non-genetically modified food supply", ""effects of GMOs on the environment and nature", "the rigor of the regulatory process", "consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs", and "concerns over the use of herbicides with glyphosate", but doesn't even mention the word benefit. This seems an unbalance within this section to me.

I think benefits in the medical sector will not generate much discussion so I haven't spent any time on that. To see a couple of the many examples of cited benefits in the agriculture and food sector, see the new section I opened up below (Suggested change to Controversy Section). (Clearly I should not have opened a new section, but added to this one, sorry about that)

Reading through your discussions I liked best the "First proposal revised", but considering all the discussion, I will modify the last suggestion to



(for the record I would delete the "but see also" part)

kind regards to all RAMRashan (talk)


 * Given that you said that you would prefer to delete the "but see also" part, here it is with that part deleted:




 * Would you prefer that we go with that as the proposal? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Whichever version we might go with, I figured I would give my personal opinion as to feedback on this proposal. I could live with it, but I feel that the first sentence is too long, and that it isn't really from the scientific consensus that the "benefits to consumers, farmers, and the environment" are concluded. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Tryptofish, many thanks.

I think that it does represent scientific consensus, but am happy to modify. I agree that the sentence is too long. How about



warm regards RAMRashan (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC) RAMRashan (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I made some edits to the wording. My primary changes were intended to anticipate objections that often come up on Wikipedia, about the vagueness of saying "some authorities" and the possible bias of saying "many authorities". I also recommend that you consider expanding citations 8–11 using Template:Cite web, for consistency with the other citations. I think that it will be quite useful to have this proposal under consideration. I still consider Proposal 1 to be my first choice, because it is more focused on the issue of the safety of eating the food, whereas issues of farming, the environment, and economy are covered elsewhere in articles, and I expect that other editors are going to object that dissent from the scientific consensus is underplayed. But I could certainly support this proposal as my second choice. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Tryptofish, Thanks for your edits and comments. You have improved it. I can expand citations 8-11 (The work for that is pretty much done from my first post here). I will probably take me a few days to be able to do that, is that a suitable time frame? RAMRashan (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)




 * Tryptofish. How's this look? warm regards RAMRashan (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a few minor fixes, and it looks good to me. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, GMO's are safe to eat but can cause trouble for the environment, as mentioned in this WP article and the seeds can spread to other fields causing problems. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Eighth Proposal
based on 4th proposal

Discussion
Based on your comments here, I welcome an attempt to create a compromise version of Proposal 4 that you find acceptable. Can we discuss here, please? Please feel free to directly edit the above content to your liking. I welcome others to this discussion but would prefer others not make edits to the text so that I can work with My very best wishes directly. If others want to make a separate copy of a Revised 8th (or a Ninth Proposal) and edit that, that is certainly acceptable. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See also Proposal 21 zazpot (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the revisions! I"d like to see any comment you might have here.  --David Tornheim (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)