Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 10

RfC - "The scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food."

 * NOTE - RfC has expired and I've requested a close at AN. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In 2013 we had an RfC, here, that upheld challenges to the scientific consensus statement below (presented with its full paragraph):

A broad scientific consensus holds that eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food. FAO, 2004. [http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm#P3_1651The State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome: "Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants – mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape – without any observed adverse effects (ICSU). "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. New profiling or 'fingerprinting' tools may be useful in testing whole foods for unintended changes in composition (ICSU)." Other sources:
 * Union der Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften (German Union of Academies of Science and Humanities) Commission Green Biotechnology Are there health hazards for the consumer from eating genetically modified food? . Accessed in 2013. "food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from "conventional" food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health."
 * French Academy of Sciences French Academy of Sciences Announces Support For Genetically Modified Crops, French Academy of Science. "Les plantes génétiquement modifiées", Décembre 2002.
 * 14 Italian scientific societies produced a Food Safety Consensus Document that said: "GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, to be safe for use in human and animal foods."
 * Tamar Haspel for the Washington Post. October 15, 2013. Genetically modified foods: What is and isn’t true
 * Winter CK and Gallegos LK (2006). Safety of Genetically Engineered Food. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Communications, Publication 8180.
 * International Council for Science (ICSU)New Genetics, Food and Agriculture: Scientific Discoveries - Societal Dilemmas (2003) "Currently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat." Their benefits include "improved nutritional quality", "removing allergens and/or toxic compounds from certain foods (e.g. peanuts)", "Pest tolerant crops can be grown with lower levels of chemical pesticides, resulting in reduced chemical residues in food, and less exposure to pesticides. Disease resistant crops may have lower levels of potentially carcinogenic mycotoxins." No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population. In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated that "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." The American Medical Association, the National Academies of Sciences and the Royal Society of Medicine have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GM food have been reported and/or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.
 * International Council for Science (ICSU)New Genetics, Food and Agriculture: Scientific Discoveries - Societal Dilemmas (2003) "Currently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat." Their benefits include "improved nutritional quality", "removing allergens and/or toxic compounds from certain foods (e.g. peanuts)", "Pest tolerant crops can be grown with lower levels of chemical pesticides, resulting in reduced chemical residues in food, and less exposure to pesticides. Disease resistant crops may have lower levels of potentially carcinogenic mycotoxins." No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population. In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated that "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." The American Medical Association, the National Academies of Sciences and the Royal Society of Medicine have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GM food have been reported and/or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.
 * International Council for Science (ICSU)New Genetics, Food and Agriculture: Scientific Discoveries - Societal Dilemmas (2003) "Currently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat." Their benefits include "improved nutritional quality", "removing allergens and/or toxic compounds from certain foods (e.g. peanuts)", "Pest tolerant crops can be grown with lower levels of chemical pesticides, resulting in reduced chemical residues in food, and less exposure to pesticides. Disease resistant crops may have lower levels of potentially carcinogenic mycotoxins." No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population. In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated that "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." The American Medical Association, the National Academies of Sciences and the Royal Society of Medicine have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GM food have been reported and/or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.
 * International Council for Science (ICSU)New Genetics, Food and Agriculture: Scientific Discoveries - Societal Dilemmas (2003) "Currently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat." Their benefits include "improved nutritional quality", "removing allergens and/or toxic compounds from certain foods (e.g. peanuts)", "Pest tolerant crops can be grown with lower levels of chemical pesticides, resulting in reduced chemical residues in food, and less exposure to pesticides. Disease resistant crops may have lower levels of potentially carcinogenic mycotoxins." No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population. In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated that "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." The American Medical Association, the National Academies of Sciences and the Royal Society of Medicine have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GM food have been reported and/or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

That statement undergoes constant challenge, so it is perhaps time to review it again. The question: Do the sources support the content? Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * note amended statement to more clearly focus on "eating" to clarify that it is a statement about food safety. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * and notified each per who already !voted. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Question: Why are we debating a paragraph that does not exist in the article? GrayDuck156 (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the full statement in the Health section of the Genetically modified food controversies article; the other appearances of the statement everywhere in Wikipedia are WP:SUMMARY statements from that full statement. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional comment: A current issue is with the use of a large number of citations to support the summary/conclusion of "broad scientific consensus." If this is clearly stated in solid secondary sources, it should take one or two citations to establish, not a dozen or more. Citation overkill, conveying an impression of biased content, and synthesis of at least some of these sources (WP:RS/AC), are specific issues central to this RfC. --Tsavage (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. TFD (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * just noticed this earlier today. this is not an appropriate way to amend the RfC statement as it makes actual claims instead of asking a neutral question. I hatted it earlier, then removed that. am restoring the hat. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

discussion of amendment

 * I disagree with your making changes to the original RfC statement, which has been under discussion to this point. Please restore to the original version. --Tsavage (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing the goal post after so many editors have weighed in invalidates this RfC, and gives support for claims that the statement being contested, along with its constantly changing string of SYNTH sources, is seriously problematic. Normally WP articles simply summarize RS, not make up new claims and shuffle about afterwards trying to find validation. If there is a consensus about the safety of eating GM foods, there should be source saying this besides a WP article.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless you are actually proposing the underlining in the article itself, the underlining is not "changing" the RfC or text, but I have to agree that it is illegitimate, because it's a way of showcasing/canvassing your particular opinion, and minimizes the fact that editors were evaluating this statement as a reader would, i.e. not necessarily very carefully. I was aware of this distinction which is why I did not get into Roundup Ready and environmental effects.  You might say that I strayed from the straight-and-narrow of this paragraph when I speculated on the potential effects of modifying canola to produce "fish oil" in order to feed to factory farmed fish in order that they contain recommended levels of "fish oil" components, but IMHO that is a largely bureaucratic loophole around the fact that the transgenic oil is being consumed by humans, or at least, not too irrelevant to mention to illustrate a principle. Wnt (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I see you made the change to secure a "vote" from BlueRaspberry, as he clearly states in his comment below, where he strikes his Oppose and says: "Support. The statement and this RfC have been modified to clarify that this is about the safety of eating the food." What is this RfC actually about, anyhow? --Tsavage (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the scope came up in several comments, and food safety was always the intended scope. the RfC question is very clearly stated and neutral: Do the sources support the content? which arose in the thread above. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You've materially altered what we have been discussing, to the degree that an editor has switched his position based on your changes. You can't tailor things as you go to get the outcomes you're after, which seems to be the case. Please revert, and first get consensus from the participants here who have already considered the originally wording. --Tsavage (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not "material" - it is a clarification that reflects other instances of the statement, as noted in the discussion below.   I have seen RfCs amended before in just this way and nothing in the RfC instructions forbids it.  The changes made are clear and  I notified everyone who had !voted so people are free to change their votes.  So, I don't agree that it is not legitimate. I posted a question at WT:RFC to get others thoughts on it, here. Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it is simply a "clarification," it changes the interpretation of the sentence, and it changes the framing of the RfC. While the original version could be interpreted to mean the same thing as your changes, the original also gave the impression of much broader safety - this is supported for one by the fact that Blue Rasberry commented in detail and reversed his position based on the wording changes.


 * As far as the RfC itself, the statement put up for comment ("The statement should be self-contained, and should not assume that the section title is available" WP:RFC) is: "In 2013 we had an RfC, here, that upheld challenges to the scientific consensus statement below (presented with its full paragraph):" and included a paragraph that was presumably upheld. Changing that paragraph makes the reference to "the scientific consensus statement below" and "its full paragraph" unclear: editors who arrived before the changes would have read different material than after, and it is implied that the original paragraph preexisted and was upheld by RfC. To fix that, you would need to change the ambiguous "statement below" and "its full paragraph," which would mean altering the central RfC statement. You're essentially rewording the RfC mid-discussion; regardless if the RfC was not well-constructed, it is well underway now.


 * At the risk of being accused of personalizing my comments, I find this a tactic, to create situations where editors either reply and perhaps in so doing seem fanatically opposed to the central issue by countering everything, or keep silent on what may be seen as perversions of a good faith process. For my part, as the record shows, I came here simply to question the large number of citations used to support the statement, and THIS is where it lead. --Tsavage (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * i'll just ignore your accusation of bad faith on my part, as i usually do. as i wrote above, the statement has always been about the safety of GM food.  safety... food.  food safety.  the statement has 'never said anything about the safety of anything like "GMOs" broadly nor GM crops.  the object was sloppy.  what needed clarification was, that food safety is about whether it is ok to eat food. it is simple clarification.  not a change in scope. you can say it wasn't til you are blue in the face but if you look at the history of the talk page discussions, it has always been about food safety. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing here with what may have been intended by the original (as I already said), or even with the conclusion that a majority of announcements by scientific organizations and others have indicated no problem to date with eating GM food compared to conventional food, only with the way changes have been made to this RfC. There are no set rules, on the other hand, everything can't be a loophole used to create more complication (we now have a changed RfC AND an informal request for comment on the validity of that change on the RFC Talk page). Common sense suggests, considering the way this RfC was worded, and the amount of participation, that you simply don't alter it at this point. --Tsavage (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

i have no questions on the validity of anything here. i started the discussion at WT:RFC so your concerns could be addressed in an appropriate forum. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support This is a politically hot topic; and people are emotional about food.  But the science is clear, and the sources support the content. No science has emerged since 2013 that changes the scientific consensus.  Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The rationale given here suggests that the citations do not adequately support the claim. The sentence "No science has emerged since 2013 that changes the scientific consensus" does not pertain, in any way, to whether the existing citations support the claim. The sentence is merely a personal opinion that is designed to provide additional support to the claim. But if the claim needs support beyond the listed citations, those citations must not be sufficient to substantiate the claim. GrayDuck156 (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This scientific review article from 2015 challenges the claim of a scientific "consensus". David Tornheim (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * which has been brought up about several times in this thread, and is authored by the advocacy organization ENSSER, and exists to promote their petition claiming that no scientific consensus exists. not the kind of source to bring to a topic like this. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Response:
 * (1) The article I cited is a very recent (2015) scientific review article, published in peer reviewed journal see here, by the major publisher Springer Publishing, a journal created by the grandson of Julius Springer who created Springer-Verlag.  Are you also claiming that Springer Publishing is an unreliable publisher?
 * The article is not a review. It is clearly labeled as a "Discussion". It is written to advocate a point of view. E.g., it repeatedly talks about an "inner circle" of bad actors who disagree with it. It also attacks a claim that our article doesn't make ("scientific consensus"), as evidenced by its repeated referrals to governments and the international agreement and its rejection of the absolute "they're safe" proposition. I say it stays out. Lfstevens (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So, then you agree that the AAAS statement, AMA statement and Pamela Ronald articles must stay out as well for the same reason, since they are all advocating a particular point of view? See (4)-(6) below.  I don't see anything wrong with experts in the field criticizing our Wikipedia article created by lay people doing WP:OR.  Our articles are not RS, but the work of expert scientists in peer reviewed journals is.  We should be welcome to outside criticism.  David Tornheim (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (2) The authors qualifications are as follows:
 * Angelika Hilbeck1,2*, Rosa Binimelis1,3, Nicolas Defarge1,4,5, Ricarda Steinbrecher1,6, András Székács1,7, Fern Wickson1,3, Michael Antoniou8, Philip L Bereano9 , Ethel Ann Clark10, Michael Hansen11, Eva Novotny12, Jack Heinemann13, Hartmut Meyer1 , Vandana Shiva14 and Brian Wynne15
 * 1 European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER Board/Secretariat), Marienstrasse 19/20, 10117 Berlin, Germany. 2 Institute of Integrative Biology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Universitätstrasse 16, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland. 3 GenØk Centre for Biosafety, Forskningsparken, PB 6418, 9294 Tromsø, Norway. 4 Comité de Recherche et d’Information Indépendantes sur le génie Génétique CRIIGEN, 40 rue Monceau, 75008 Paris, France. 5 University of Caen, Institute of Biology IBFA and Network on Risks, Quality and Sustainable Environment MRSH, Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen, France. 6 EcoNexus, Oxford OX4 9BS, UK. 7 Central Environmental and Food Science Research Institute, POB 393, H-1537 Budapest, Hungary. 8 Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London, Guy’s Hospital, London SE1 9RT, UK. 9 Technology and Public Policy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA. 10Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, K0K 3 K0 Warkworth, Ontario, Canada. 11Consumers Union, 101 Truman Avenue, Yonkers, NY 10703, USA. 12Clare Hall, University of Cambridge, Herschel Road, Cambridge CB3 9AL, UK. 13Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. 14Navdanya Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India. 15Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, CSEC, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.


 * (3) Can you provide WP:RS under the WP:MEDRS guideline of a review article from a scientific journal that identifies ENSSER as an 'activist' or 'advocacy' organization and says the same about the 15 scientists who authored the document?  The qualifications of the authors suggest something entirely different.   What specific WP:PAG policies and guidelines and facts from RS are being used to make this determination of “advocacy”?
 * (4) Under the standard used for “advocacy” organization or person, shouldn't AAAS, AMA and Pamela Ronald and her Laboratory for Crop Genetics Innovation & Scientific Literacy (at UC Davis) and its associated education and policy, press, publications, her book, and her TedX talk “The case for engineering our food" all be considered pro-GMO activism?    According to this newspaper article published by UC Davis, “Ronald has emerged –- nationally and internationally –- as one of the most effective advocates for genetic engineering … “.  On Ronald's own blog is included a review by Kate Washington ("Opposites attract", The Sacramento News & Review) identifies work in her book as “advocacy”.  This article in the New Yorker mentions "her advocacy of G.M.O.s...".   This Sacramento Bee article calls her a "GMO advocate".   A National Geographic article  says her book “argues for a food system that is both organic … and genetically engineered” and that  “she’s promoting a form of sustainable agriculture”.  All of this sounds like pro-GMO advocacy to me.  Do you agree?
 * (5a) Under the standard used for “advocacy” organization or person, is AAAS an advocacy organization? AAAS's web-site has an about statement that the AAAS “is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science for the benefit of all people” [emphasis added], including goals such as  “Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use”, “Promote the responsible use of science in public policy”, “Strengthen support for the science and technology enterprise”, “Strengthen and diversify the science and technology workforce”, among other objectives that all sound to promote both science and new technologies—like GMO's—to me.  On another page of their web-site, “policy & public statements”, it states:  “The AAAS articulates positions on critical science-related issues in public statements from the Board of Directors and Council, in letters to Congress and other public bodies, and in newspaper commentaries and broadcast interviews.”  There is also a tab dedicated to “Policy and Advocacy”.  It sure sounds to me like the AAAS is an “advocacy organization”.
 * (5b) Under the standard used for “advocacy” organization or person, is the AMA an advocacy organization? Consider arguments made by Tsavage here and here that AMA is an "advocacy" organization. ( (5b) entry added David Tornheim (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC))
 * (6) If the answer to (4) or (5) is that yes, Pamela Ronald and/or the AAAS, and/or the AMA engage in pro-GMO "advocacy" (three of the major proposed RS for this RfC which are currently used in a number of the GMO articles ), it would be hypocritical and a double-standard to exclude consideration of other groups, individuals or views deemed as "advocacy" simply because their advocacy is not pro-GMO. David Tornheim (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC) (revised David Tornheim (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)) (revised David Tornheim (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC))
 * You seem to be itching for a response. 1) We don't judge whether a given source is reliable to support a given statement based on publisher alone. People who don't understand scientific publishing write things like "The Lancet said X or Y".  That is almost never a valid statement - sometimes the editors of the Lancet publish an editorial, and then you could write " X, chief editor of the Lancet, wrote Y" but that is as far as that goes.  A flaky publisher can render a source generally unreliable, but a generally fine publisher doesn't render a given source reliable for a given statement. The thing about grandson is completely irrelevant  2) The key thing about the authors is their affiliation with ENNSER and their use of their article to pitch their petition, per its conclusion. Scientific articles don't try to convince people to sign petitions.  Advocacy pieces do that.   3) nope, it is common sense, per my response on 2).  4) - 6) are all the same question. Your calling AAAS an "advocacy organization" is so generalized that it is meaningless. AAAS advocates for science. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You did not address Pamela Ronald. Do we agree she is an advocate? David Tornheim (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The broad scientific consensus about the safety of GM foods is clear. The consensus for the inclusion on the material of this stands. I was unable to find any major scientific evidence suggesting that this has changed since 2013. Instead I have found a 2015 Pew Research Center study that found that the percentage of AAAS scientists which agree that GM Foods are safe (88%) is even higher than the percentage that agree that humans are causing global warming (87%). 88% of scientists is enough to establish a broad scientific consensus on top of the sources already provided. Winner 42 Talk to me!  01:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believed that the sources supported the content, why did you feel the need to search for additional support? GrayDuck156 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I exercise due diligence and research the subject before commenting at RfCs rather than merely spouting my personal beliefs? Winner 42 Talk to me!  16:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this RfC is not to debate GMO foods, it is to discuss whether the citations support the sentence in the article. The WHO citation, specifically, does not support it. Nowhere on that web page does the WHO assert that "[t]here is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." Jytdog is arguing that that the WHO article, taken together with the other citations, leads to that conclusion. Even if that argument was true (which it is not, at least with respect to the WHO citation), the rules of Wikipedia explicitly disallow such synthesis: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. ...[A]ny statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." WP:RS/AC GrayDuck156 (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So instead of commenting on the additional source I just provided, you are cherry picking one source that only moderately supports the statement. 88% can be considered "most scientists" by any reasonable definition of the word. Trying to imply that these statements provided by Jytdog, are synth is inaccurate and a very broad interpretation of the policy. WP:SYNTHNOT definitely applies here, specifically this section. Winner 42 Talk to me!  18:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you feel I'm butting in on your argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the Pew survey doesn't directly support "broad scientific consensus," does it? That survey queries around 4,000 US-based scientists (defined by AAAS membership) of all sorts, not specialists in any GM-related area. So as "scientists," I guess we can assume that they are expert in evaluating evidence-based findings, but beyond that, it's not clear how many have actually reviewed GM food research in any systematic way, professionally or personally. Pew seems to be comparing views of the US general population, with the views of a subset, "scientists," on a range of topics, including GM food. It's not about scientific evidence. (And WP:RS/AC seems startlingly explicit and on-point for this situation, compare to many WP rules.) --Tsavage (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's more recent and those editors who disagree continue to raise the subject? Lfstevens (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The 2015 Pew science and society study (of US AAAS scientists and US public) has some startling/troubling stuff. Compared to 88% of surveyed scientists believing GM food is safe to eat, 57% of the public believes it's unsafe, and 67% of the public believe scientists don't understand the health risks. Meanwhile, 52% of the scientists believe the best scientific info guides government regulation sometimes/never (as opposed to always/mostly). It seems like a nightmare of mistrust all around (at least, in the US), and it's near impossible to find the line between scientific evidence, and interpretation through regulation and through political considerations in general. A lot of this seems US-based, where a big chunk of the money, technology, and reporting comes from. A member of the "bordering on scientifically illiterate American public" (per one commentary on the Pew study) coming to this article and finding 18-19 citations to support a simply stated conclusion is not likely to be any better off for it, and probably more confused and annoyed than ever. Working out the language, to readable, easily verifiable standards, seems quite important here, since we're talki9ng about our planetary food supply. :) --Tsavage (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support the discussion of GMOs covers a broad range of issues, but safety to human health isn't one of them, and the scientific consensus continues to hold that current marketed GMOs have no novel risks to human health.TypingAway (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This rationale does not pertain to the listed citations (either the citations listed in the article or the citations listed in the opening of this RfC) and, therefore, does not substantively address the question at issue in this RfC. As such, the opinion expressed should not be given any weight. WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever." GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If it takes (by my count) 18 19 sources to support "broad scientific consensus," something is wrong. If we could reduce that to the best two or three, it should be relatively simple to determine if support is there. --Tsavage (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, something is wrong. We have good sources for broad scientific consensus, and some people wish there wasn't, so they basically keep waving them away one by one and demanding more. You can see this in the reaction to eh AAAS paper. This is a high level summary by a scientific body of national standing, yet people are treating it as if it were a primary source, because they don't like what it says. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Guess there is no accounting for taste! As far as I can tell (from a quick look, Jytdog would know the details, he was involved all through), this heavily cited "broad scientific consensus" wording started in the lead of the GM food controversies article, Nov-2012 (related Talk discussion), with six citations, including AAAS discussed here and five others, which I skimmed for conclusions. At a glance, none of them seem to clearly support the wording of "broad consensus," so it's likely the later accumulation of citations was meant to further compensate for a lack of a definitive source or two. Here is a summary from one of the original five other citations:
 * "All evidence evaluated to date indicates that unexpected and unintended compositional changes arise with all forms of genetic modification, including genetic engineering. Whether such compositional changes result in unintended health effects is dependent upon the nature of the substances altered and the biological consequences of the compounds. To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."
 * From that to "broad scientific consensus for no greater risk to human health than conventional food" as a simple paraphrase or summary may be fine for some but understandably not for others (to me, the former is quite far from the fairly resounding endorsement that is the latter, more of a "so good, so far"; am I missing the expert interpretation of the careful report language, or is keeping an eye out and hoping for the best, scientifically, all that's reasonably expected?). It seems to come down to what constitutes reliable sourcing for this particular (fully optional) statement. --Tsavage (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Based on the following PAGs, comments, arguments and observations plucked from this RfC/Discussion (updated June 29):
 * WP:RS/AC states: The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editor.


 * "[OP is] pushing for a controversial blanket statement that is only anywhere nearly supported (i.e. not supported) by non-independent sources writing specifically in favor of GM food. I'm not sure why you're insisting on this loaded phrase, "broad scientific consensus," if not to promote that position. It's a pronouncement that doesn't explain anything to readers, and the sources aren't there to support it, not per WP:RS/AC. And there are other ways to convey the information in the cited sources. Furthermore, explain how AAAS and Ronald are independent sources for the material cited here. Apart from the fact that saying genetic engineering is in and of itself no riskier as a way to modify food than any other method, is not saying that all food is safe. All the sources may seem to add up to a general agreement, but there are no reliable independent sources that actually say that, which is the whole point of verifiability." - Tsavage 02:57, 9 June


 * "[W]e have a bunch of sources - a mix of studies, announcements by organizations, scientific opinion pieces, even a newspaper article - that seem to add up to a majority conclusion, but apparently no solid independent source actually says there is consensus, yet there is a determination by some editors to make this collection of sources say that in those sweeping words and none other." - Tsavage 01:13, 3 June


 * "[T]his is one big bunch of OR synthesis. Taking parts from different sources and coming up with a claim that none of them expressly state." - AlbinoFerret 00:46, 13 June


 * The Sources in question


 * 1) AAAS letter (the only source besides #3 to claim "consensus")
 * not peer-reviewed
 * includes a false representation of the WHO's position
 * contrasts GM food with "conventional plant breeding techniques", not "conventional food"
 * not a review
 * "The AAAS document, "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods," is a position piece opposing mandatory labeling legislation in the US." - Tsavage 17:01, 8 June
 * "A press release from the American Association for the Advancement of Science—with exactly two footnotes!—does not begin to fulfill the requirements for a reliable source in this case." - groupuscule 20:13, 28 June


 * "The AAAS public position paper, which seems to be the source most cited as support for the consensus statement, was written to argue against GM labeling, published as news on their web site, and seems obviously aimed at legislators, media reporters, and the general public, as a group, non-technical readers. It's essentially a form of press release." - Tsavage 20:21, 16 June


 * 2) EC/EU
 * Does not support the statement: A broad scientific consensus holds that eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food.


 * "In light of the total of 25 years of EU-funded research, and the various newly emerged research subcategories (environmental impact, food safety, etc), the EC/EU report says the main conclusion is that "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." To paraphrase, "of all the human methods of plant modification, genetic engineering has not proven to be inherently riskier a method than any other." - Tsavage 17:01, 8 June


 * "If a source says, "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies," but does not go on to explicitly summarize that as "scientific consensus," then the statement is not supported: how do I know that there aren't 1,000 independent research groups, 50 years of research, and 260 research projects? For the consensus statement, a single solidly reliable source must do the job. Additional sources should only echo what the first source says, and be provided in reasonable number, like one or two, simply for accessible reader assurance. Anything else is synthesis, requiring the combination of two or more sources to support the article statement. - Tsavage 00:23, 6 June


 * 3) Pamela Ronald


 * "[O]nly two sources (Ronald and Miller) use the exact term, "broad scientific consensus," ... they are both highly visible, public proponents of biotechnology in agriculture, including genetic engineering. This would seem to make them less than independent sources. - Tsavage 12:07, 1 June


 * "The only source that actually says, "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat," is [Ronald]. We look for independent sources, ones likely to display objectivity; bias is not a reason to discount a source, however, a strong interest in promoting a particular point of view has to be weighed against the information being used. Ronald, a plant geneticist specializing in GM rice, is an active, public advocate for GE of food - "Ronald explained that her advocacy of G.M.O.s is deeply tied to her opposition to the use of harmful chemicals in agriculture"[27] - speaking, writing, and debating from the "proGMO" position (e.g. "Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food," a recent TED Talk). Her conclusion is an expert's opinion, not a systematic review of scientific literature, and as such would seem to be best used (for neutrality) as a quote with in-text attribution, not as a main source for turning Ronald's statement into a summary statement in Wikipedia's voice." - Tsavage 22:51, 6 June


 * "The source article appears in a scientific journal, but is not a systematic review of literature, it is an expert's overview of genetic engineering in agriculture, with some broad citations. Ronald is therefore not independent of the subject when editorializing professionally, therefore, this material should be attributed in-text, not cited as an independent source. Further, her safety reasoning still concludes:


 * These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment." - Tsavage 17:01, 8 June


 * "The source appears to be a research paper rather than experimental research, so it is only as valuable as its sources. Its sources, besides being very old or difficult to find online, appear to only support the claim that "...the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health..." rather than the much bolder claim that "[t]here is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." - GrayDuck156 04:25, 9 June


 * 5) SciAm
 * Opinion piece
 * Not a review
 * Does not mention scientific consensus


 * 6) WHO


 * Does not support the statement
 * The WHO says: "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."


 * 7) FAO


 * Does not support the statement
 * The FAO says: "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. ..."


 * "[T]he FAO excerpt ... seems to be merely passing on an opinion given in the 2003 ICSU report rather than expressing the FAO's own opinion. That conclusion is strengthened by the sentence: "The scientific evidence presented in this chapter relies largely on a [2003] report from the [ICSU]." When the FAO does start to speak in its own words, it expresses words of caution about GMO food: "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." - GrayDuck156 04:29, 10 June


 * General observations about the sources in question:


 * "Any consensus equivalence seems to be for "genetic engineering of food crops is no riskier than conventional breeding of food crops." The first two sources state:


 * "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques" - AAAS
 * "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies" - European Commission


 * *"We are looking for confirmation that there is a "broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." Those two sources state that GMOs are not inherently more likely to be harmful than conventionally bred crops: there is no reason to expect that risk of unintended harm is any greater in GMOs. That does not seem to reach "broad scientific consensus" that the actual risk is the same for every food on the market. A conventional hybrid crop could be harmful, and so could a GM crop, but not just because it is GM - I could therefore possibly conclude that all currently available foods are equally safe, but that is my conclusion, not what is explicitly stated in these sources." - Tsavage 22:51, 6 June


 * Wnt, Sarah (SV) and Tsavage had good suggestions for improving coverage of this issue:


 * "[I]n general I think an article like this should try to gather many sources and viewpoints. Certainly a preference for high-quality sources should not exclude the presentation of all notable viewpoints. A well-written article should say what the best sources think on safety, but also outline all the main objections as well as all the main arguments why they are safe. I think some people here sound like they expect a Wikipedia article to make it sound like the issue is settled and this is what the Truth is, but that's not what we're here for - we're here to help people research any aspect of the issues they want." - Wnt 11:39, 2 June


 * "IMO, we should do away with the "broad scientific consensus" statement, and state the "general agreement" material with more detail, covering the concept of substantial equivalence, the safety testing and absence of harm reports to date, and the general regulatory framework, all in succinct, summary form, using attributed quotes as necessary. - Tsavage 17:01, 8 June


 * "No quote is given from the WHO, either in the paragraph or footnote, and its position doesn't really support the paragraph. Also, the quote from the FAO has left out the part where they express doubt. So those quotes should be added to the footnote (if the others are going to remain) and the paragraph tweaked accordingly. Part of the WHO's statement could be included in the paragraph as it's more nuanced and represents something other than the US/UK view." - Sarah (SV) 21:28, 1 June


 * "As it is, that statement is splashed across several GMO articles, and presents a kind of wall, an editorial ultimatum: "Sure, you can wade through (up to 18) sources, or just take our word that the experts agree." In a complicated, controversial current topic like this, saying "just about every scientist agrees," doesn't seem transparent enough ... Our own article on scientific consensus notes: "In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy." In controversial topics, BSC is not necessarily a neutral term, and should be regarded with care. For my part, there is no desire to obscure results, instead to present them to a general reader in an understandable way, not as a take-it-or-leave it pronouncement. There is other, equally clear language available, BSC is not the only option. - Tsavage 22:38, 6 June


 * Reliable sources that say there is no consensus:


 * Domingo (2011), the only review to date of health studies that examined GM food, has an impact factor equal to that of the journal used in the 3rd source (the Pamela Ronald review) supporting the safety consensus claim, so should be equally acceptable. Domingo found:
 * " ...An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns..."   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No scientific consensus on GMO safety: "A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired." There is no consensus, and WP cannot continue to air this claim.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The following comments refer only to the above source, not to the 29 June update.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   09:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That source carries no weight against sources supplied in support of the overwhelming consensus that GM foods are just as safe as the genetically modified foods humans have been consuming for thousands of years. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Now we have two sources. One a survey of AAAS and another an organized statement of a group of critics. I'd say the survey has to be counted more trustworthy. And that's in addition to the other, earlier sources. Is there a countering survey that supports the critique? Lfstevens (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "An organized statement of a group of critics" - I am not sure where you are sourcing this information, but half of the group identifies as pro-GMO. The group is critical of the "GMO's are safe for sure" claim; their criticism is based on solid reasoning and well-sourced evidence presented in the paper. And finally, there is a serious problem with the AAAS and other sources used for the consensus statement, which Grey Duck elucidates here.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking you didn't read the source. And you are showing a lack of understanding about what genetically modified foods are. Hybridized foods have been around thousands of years, but GMOs were born in a lab in the 90's. The source above should be read with great care, as these 300 scientists and doctors have called out Wikipedia specifically in the document. See reference 16, and note their mentions of an "Internet website". This is a serious black eye for WP.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   08:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Think what you will, the source remains worthless nonetheless. And no, it's not my lack of understanding that is showing. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember this discussion isn't about whether GMOs are or are not safe or whatever. It's about what the scientific community has concluded, if anything. Lfstevens (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As of this January, the referenced letter "No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety" has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe so, I do not think that your opinion of this letter as "worthless" is warranted. The letter also points out that the review "A Decade of EU-funded GMO Research" fails to provide "evidence for sweeping claims about the safety of any single GM food or of GM crops in general" because none of the studies cited in the review tested commercialized GM food or studied effects for a period longer than 90 days. This EU review is used to support the claim that "food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" in the introduction to this article, and so the EU review should be removed from the list of citations supporting that claim.
 * It's not worthless, but it doesn't per se refute the "consensus" claim. It shows the existence of a competing point of view. Now the question is, which view reflects the consensus, if there is one. Consensus isn't unanimity... Lfstevens (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If your point of disagreement with the "No Scientific Consensus" letter is because it is a letter (now published in a peer-reviewed journal) rather than a study, please note that I discuss the reasons why scientists have frequently been unable to legally study and publish health studies related to GM food further down in the discussion. The issue of scarce independent health studies on GM food is also noted by the United Nations Environment Programme in their International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, published in 2009. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not the point of disagreement. The point of disagreement is that the AAAS statement is a review statement by a scientific body of national standing, whereas your preferred source is a letter to a journal by a group of individuals. The problems is one of WP:PARITY. It does not help your case that their first cited source has already been retracted once, and there have been serious questions about its re-publication and the way the authors chose to go about it. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted elsewhere, the UN and AND both state that there is no scientific consensus. The reports from these two groups were extensive, collaborative efforts. The AAAS letter from the Board of Directors is a short statement of opinion from a small group of people, one of whom is a former lobbyist with the biotech company Sigma-Aldrich Chemical. The AAAS BoD statement was issued shortly before a vote on GM food labeling in California, a bill which Sigma-Aldrich Chemical opposed. If we are to interpret this letter as uninfluenced by her questionable connection to the issue, then please explain why you think it's reasonable to then be so critical of the connections that you question regarding the "No Scientific Consensus" letter, which was signed by more people, and published in a peer-reviewed journal. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources please. They may allow us to move forward. Lfstevens (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How's this, ? (TL;DR: 2011 peer reviewed study of recent peer-reviewed literature finds that half showed no differences between GM foods and conventional, and the other half found cause for concern.)   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * support sources support the content--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This opinion should not be given any weight for two reasons. First, it contains no substantive contribution to the discussion. According to WP:TALKDONTREVERT, "The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever." Second, the editor fails to distinguish between the sources that are actually listed in the article and those that are listed in the opening of this RfC. GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Sources seem to support the statement. Petrarchan's source merits consideration; however I'd like to see some more studies supporting it to dispel concerns about due weight. Plus, it seems to talk more about reliability concerns of the current research (which don't necessarily invalidate it) and less about the contested statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the statements and sources in the actual article, or the paragraph and citations listed in the opening of this RfC? GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose / not sure I have not followed this issue so do not know all of the context, nor do I know the sources so well, but I expect that "A broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food" is not an accurate reflection of the sources. What I would expect to see is a claim that ""A broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk for an individual to eat than conventional food". I think the intention here is to focus on the safety of including GM food in an individual person's diet, and I think the scientific consensus is that there is no distinction between GM food and conventional food at the level of the individual. I do not recognize that level of scientific agreement concerning all other aspects of genetically modified food, including those listed at Genetically_modified_food_controversies which have nothing to do with its safety to eat.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  10:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * the statement is only meant to be about eating (e.g. the version of this in the lead of the GM food controversy article, says "While there is concern among the public that eating genetically modified food may be harmful, there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from these crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." I agree that this is a more clear statement.  I do think the paragraph is very clear that it is about eating food, and not the many other issues that are controversial (e.g environment, market dynamics, etc).  But is that why you are opposing, b/c the sentence is not explicit enough, that it is about eating GM food?  thx Jytdog (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, my opposition is only for the lack of clarity that the consensus is about safety as nutrition for individuals. I think there is not scientific consensus of the safety of GM food as a societal food source considering environmental impact and social issues.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, (sorry to keep pinging you - if you are watching this page let me know and i will stop) - would you be OK with the statement above from the GM food controversy article? If so I will amend; that is reaasonable. I believe the "support" votes have been directed to the 'safe-to-eat' idea, as many of them said. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I still direct my support to the "safe to eat" concept and withhold it for other contexts. With the claim "there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from these crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" I still think too much is expressed regarding consensus beyond "safe to eat", so I do not support that statement. I would like to pause discussing this because so many others have ideas here. "Safe to eat" is a concise statement that probably works, or maybe not. I am not sure.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Quoting directly from one of the sources presented on this page, "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." I support any statement which expresses that and does not imply more. I struck my oppose to indicate that I support the intent of what is being discussed here, even if I disagree with the proposed wording. I hope that the wording can be changed to bring focus to "safe to eat" and not express consensus for "safe in all contexts".  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The statement and this RfC have been modified to clarify that this is about the safety of eating the food. Yes, I agree that the sources support the claim made here.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The WHO web page does not contain a statement that is equivalent to the sentence it purports to substantiate. Nor does it claim that any subset of GMO foods pose "no greater risk to human health than conventional food." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayDuck156 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any thoughts on the other 7 sources used to substantiate that statement? TypingAway (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the same question we are asking of readers, to verify a sweeping statement like "broad scientific consensus" with a total of 19 cited sources. That's unreasonable. Big statement, solid source, else we have to find a more accessible way to summarize the research, satisfying both readability and reader verifiability. --Tsavage (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog is arguing in the WHO citation thread, above, that anyone who expresses support for the citations collectively is in complete agreement with each and every one of those citations. I want to be clear that I do not believe that the WHO citation supports the claim. GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not argue that. Also noting here that this !vote is not responsive to the question but is rather voting on a different question - namely whether one of the sources  - WHO - supports the statement. (The AAAS disagrees with that assessment, but GrayDuck is entitled to their opinion Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In the thread above regarding the WHO citation, you argued that all discussion should stop on the basis that this RfC subsumes that question. Now you are arguing that the two matters are mutually exclusive. Were you wrong then and right now or right now and wrong then? GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This RfC has, in my opinion, two fatal flaws. First, the paragraph at issue does not even exist in the article. Are we debating the actual article or are we debating the paragraph listed above that is not included in the article? Second, the question is hopelessly ambiguous. It can be interpreted as "Do any of the sources support the content?" or "Do all of the sources support the content?" An affirmative finding for the first question should not be sufficient to conclude that the material should be retained (or adding it, if we are talking about the paragraph listed above). The material should only be retained if it includes citations that are both reliable and directly support the claim. Combining unreliable sources that directly support a claim with reliable sources that do not support a claim does not sum to a claim that has reliable sources that directly support the claim. GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If the question is "Do any of the sources support the content?," my answer is no. (I am talking about the sentence at issue in the article, not the fabricated paragraph in the RfC opening.) According to WP:RS/AC, "[t]he statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. ...[a]ny statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." None of the sources directly state that such a consensus exists as stated in the article. The only one that comes close is the AAAS citation. However, the AAAS opinion piece has two problems. First, it uses the phrase "conventional plant improvement techniques" rather than "conventional food." That difference is problematic because "conventional food" arguably does not include any genetically engineered food at all whereas "conventional plant improvement techniques" arguably do include plants that are genetically engineered without genetically-modified organisms. At least one author, Dr. William Davis, argues that some non-GMO genetic engineering has been very harmful. The other problem with the AAAS source is that it is not a reliable source. According to WP:RELIABLE, "[a]rticles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources... Questionable sources are those...which rely heavily on...personal opinions." The AAAS statement does not meet these criteria for several reasons. First, it is an opinion piece rather than a peer-reviewed article. Second, the source undermines its credibility by including a claim that is not true. Specifically, it argues that "...the World Health Organization...has come to the...conclusion [that] consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." We know, from extensive discussion in a thread above, that the WHO has not come to that conclusion. Third, the AAAS citation cannot necessarily be considered to be third-party. Whether the source is third-party is not clear because we do not know that the members of the AAAS board have no conflicts of interest. GrayDuck156 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Many of the other sources have similar problems to that of the AAAS statement--such as making comparisons to non-GMO genetic engineering rather than conventional food and having reliability and sourcing weaknesses. Another problem with many of the sources is that many of them only express opinions regarding the GMO food that was released many years ago rather than all of the GMO food on the market today. In fact, some of them expressly warn that future (at the time of issuance of the opinion years ago) GMO food could cause health problems. GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The statement can be used by the reader as medical advice. As such, it should be supported by the testimony of medical doctors. The AMA, WHO, and IOM citations do not support the claim. GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * no, that is dead wrong. articles about health in wikipedia make statements about safety and effects all the time; that is the heart of what we do in content related to health. that is completely different from saying "Take SSRIs if you feel depressed" or "eat organic food only" or "avoid GMOs" Each of those advice.   Jytdog (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * MEDRS applies, unless Zad doesn't understand WP either: "And as we're discussing a statement about the health effects of food, absolutely WP:MEDRS is the correct guideline, hard to see how it wouldn't be" (from his reply to David Tornheim below, @ 00:58 8 June).   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   18:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * MEDRS has nothing to do with advice b/c we don't give advice in WP, anywhere. MEDRS covers content about health. Food safety is about health. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the the first paragraph of the WP:MEDRS guideline which clearly states that its purpose is to address people's use of Wikipedia for medical advice.David Tornheim (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're talking about MEDRS, all the sources being originally being discussed meet MEDRS. We're pulling from reviews, professional organizations, etc. how are exactly within the expertise that wold be studying the topic. The argument that we are providing medical advice here is tendentious though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your sources do not qualify as MEDRS, except for the couple that do which are being misrepresented. The only actual review of GM food and its impact on human health is Domingo, which has been ignored or denigrated by those in support of the SC statement. I would assume it is because the results say there is NO consensus in the science. The studies that have found no ill effects are roughly equal to the number of studies that have raised "serious concerns". Editors who want the articles to state that there is a scientific consensus should immediately address the request for one or two sources that actually support the SC claim. This is not too much to ask. Further, MEDRS was created precisely because WP was (and is) being used for medical advice.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not say that the statement was unmistakable as medical advice; I merely said that readers can use it as medical advice. GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to the closer: please be sure to review my closing statement at 05:28, 25 June 2015. Also, please note why this RfC started. I removed the WHO citation from the article, then the edit was reversed by Jytdog, and then he started the above thread to discuss the matter. I was trying to address the topic one source at a time. I raise that point because, had that approach been used, your job would have been much easier. GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ^That note can be found in this diff. I agree with  GrayDuck156's assessment in that summary that the arguments made by those supporting this sourcing fail to support the "consensus" statement. David Tornheim (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support While I would prefer to use a quote from one of the sources rather than hammering out language intra-WP, I don't find a substantial reason to reject the current lanaguage. I would certainly entertain alternative proposaled language that the community could consider. Lfstevens (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you point to wording in any of the articles that is equivalent to the first sentence? The only one that comes close, as far as I can see, is the AAAS statement. However, please see my comment above regarding the phrases "conventional plant improvement techniques" and "conventional food." GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Some revisions are desirable. The overall thrust of the statement, and the provision of many source citations, are accurate.  However, sources like the AAAS statement attests to the safety of currently marketed GM food based on regulation of GM food, in particular, the requirement that added proteins be shown to be non-toxic and non-allergenic.  This is a crucial dependency.  There is no law of nature that would stop me from taking any toxin from any species (subject to compatibility of glycosylation and other processing) and putting it into a GM plant.  It would be difficult, yes, and obviously it wouldn't pay outside of some very specialized and hopefully hypothetical marketplace, but in scientific terms, it is not impossible.  For a realistic example, see .  More generally see pharming (genetics); the accidental diversion or contamination of crops isn't that far-fetched a scenario.  To address this, 1) In front of "In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated..." I would append "Noting United States regulations that require any added proteins be proven neither toxic nor allergenic, ..."  2) I'd prefer to add "the" in front of "currently marketed" to emphasize that a specific range of foods is addressed  3) considerable work could be done to make the focus of this article less U.S.-centric regarding toxicity - we should have sources in other paragraphs to address the question of whether anyone, anywhere on Earth is growing untested, potentially toxic GM foods and bringing them to markets. Wnt (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * all that stuff, is not about the subject sentence. (this is one of reasons why we get objections - people treat it, as though it says something it doesn't.) . pharming crops are not GM food.  and the statement is not about any theoretical food, it is about currently marketed food.  the limitation about US violates GLOBAL and is not accurate, as regulators around the world look at the same basic things. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to reiterate that the statement you are referring to is not a sweeping claim of consensus from the AAAS. It was written by the AAAS Board of Directors and, considering that a group of scientists formally issued a letter of disagreement on a separate issue with the Board's statement, I see no reason to interpret the rest of the Board's letter as scientific evidence. The letter is neither a scientific literature review, nor a statement of official policy from the AAAS. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The AAAS Board are speaking for the AAAS. We correctly represent this as a corporate statement. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My point in noting the letter of disagreement to that AAAS statement is to point out that a letter from a Board of Directors does not equate to agreement from the members of that society, This letter serves to prove what the board thinks, and nothing more. There was also a clear conflict of interest from the board, which published the letter shortly before a vote on a GM labeling bill in California. The chair of the board is Nina Federoff, previously a board member with the Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company.66.169.76.198 (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: References 2, 4 and 7 are the strongest; the others could be folded into 8 as "other sources". Addition of watering-down text such as "currently marketed" is not NPOV. It suggests that the intuition of those who oppose GM foods is correct, and that evidence to support them must be out there somewhere. Roches (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that reference 7 is not listed anywhere in the article. Could you please point to the sentences in the other two sources that you think are equivalent to any of the sentences in the article? GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant the references as numbered in the passage above; since it's the survey section I decided not to elaborate. I meant the one by the European Union, doi:10.2777/97784, the one by the American Medical Association and the one by the World Health Organization. Roches (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reference 7 is to the FAO source, not the WHO. In any event, please be specific about which sentences in those three sources actually state that "[t]here is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." I have looked at all three sources and cannot find any support for that claim in any of those three sources. GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I have laid out my argument against this claim, and the problems with those sources which I felt like reviewing, in the discussion. You can find my most extensive comment by searching for "In regards to your comment that this article is about actual GM food, Jytdog," 66.169.76.198 (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Wikipedia reflects the world as it is, not as some people wish or fear it to be. I cannot find a single documented incident of provable harm in over three decades of routine use of GMOs, or any reputable scientific body that identifies any proven harm. I also find no evidence of any objectively quantifiable shift in scientific opinion away from safety since the last RfC. Opposition to golden rice has also exposed major flaws in the arguments of anti-GMO activists, showing that many of the sources which claimed to be based on science are, in fact, founded on irrational reaction to the idea of GMOs - which is one of the major factors that persuaded me to re-evaluate my own views. If anything the matter is clearer now than it was then and the nature of dissenting opinion more clearly identified as philosophical rather than scientific. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I point out further down in the discussion, the ongoing issue regarding patent-blocking of health studies on GM foods-- an issue that the United Nations Environment Programme also comments on in their International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics-- explains the disconcerting lack of overall health studies on this issue, as well as, more specifically, the lack of rigorous studies showing the potential for adverse effects. This lack of study has been repeatedly quantified by Domingo and has been noted by the United Nations Environment Programme and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, among others. These two agencies also state that there is no scientific consensus on whether GM foods are as safe as conventional foods. I have already linked these sources several times in this discussion, and as of yet have received no response from folks in support of the RfC claim.
 * I'd also like to point out that, despite this lack of study on health issues related to GM food, your failure to find "a single documented incident of provable harm in over three decades of routine use of GMOs" is questionable. These studies are not hard to find. Studies by Séralini and Carmen are easy reference points. These studies have been subjected to fierce rebuke but, as Séralini points out in a published letter in the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal, unscientific double standards have been applied to research that finds adverse health effects of GM food. If you question this letter, I invite you to review the Zhang and Hammond studies called into question by the letter, and compare their review process to that applied to the Séralini study. Further evidence suggesting that currently marketed GM food may cause adverse health impacts can be viewed here, and a study on the impact of financial conflicts of interest on GM food health studies can be found here. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Wikipedia should acknowledge plausible fears. If we write an article about some kind of space vehicle, it is not sufficient to say "it was built by the best engineers, and it has never crashed."  No, we should explore what would happen if it did crash, what Mission Control does to keep its path mostly over uninhabited area, abort procedures for the astronauts, etc.  This is actually true even if the vehicle was retired 20 years ago and we know it never crashed.
 * We do. It's in the controversies article. Lfstevens (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is in any way "irrational" to not trust the judgment of the people who make the GMOs, or the regulators. It is possible that someone will get the bright idea to make sunflower oil more like fish oil and manipulate the crop to produce unnatural lipids that could turn out, after years of study, to be as bad as trans fats.  It is possible that someone will manipulate a potato with the best of intentions and inadvertently increase the production of cardiac glycosides in the tubers.  So far, as you say, nothing like this has happened, but the fear is not irrational.  It would be a terrible disgrace if the sons of Athena were as careless with her power as Phaeton - the rational people of the world need to reason about things that have not yet happened yet. Wnt (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but it doesn't make sense to distrust the makers of GMOs more than we distrust those who make other things that we urgently depend on. Lfstevens (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case the space vehicle was built by the best engineers and has been in daily use for over three decades with billions of "journeys" every year and it's never crashed. At some point the residual doubt is too small to worry about. I am struggling to think of a single recent new technology which comes out anywhere near as safe. There are philosophical arguments against GMOs, but the safety arguments are unsupported by any hard evidence, as far as I can see, and many of the arguments against us saying GMOs are safe to eat, require rather blatant WP:SYN. Seralini, in particular, is not a credible source. The way he went about publishing his paper, and republishing after retraction, raises serious doubts about his objectivity - in fact this looks like yet another example of trying to provide sciencey-looking support for a philosophical objection, by any means possible. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your conclusion, we don't really care what individuals think. We're trying to tease out whether a consensus exists and what it says. (The article already takes a position on this.) Lfstevens (talk)


 * : "I cannot find a single documented incident of provable harm in over three decades of routine use of GMOs, or any reputable scientific body that identifies any proven harm. I also find no evidence of any objectively quantifiable shift in scientific opinion away from safety since the last RfC." How does these sentences pertain to whether any of the existing sources support any of the existing claims? GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: The reliable sources are quite unanimous on this issue, and we are editors of a free, online encyclopedia that is meant to reflect what the reliable sources say. I agree with the suggestion in previous survey replies that finding some of the latest secondary sources to back up this statement would be especially helpful to editors who are new to Wikipedia and new to identifying reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please identify the "reliable sources" to which you are referring and how you concluded that they are reliable? Which sentences in those sources, in your belief, are equivalent to the claim that "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food."? GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose My problem is primarily with sourcing: 18 or so sources are presented to support a conclusion - "broad scientific consensus" - that is synthesis not summary unless taken from a solid source. That source may be present amongst the 18, but at least narrow it down to two or three according to Wikipedia conventions and common sense (one editor has voted for 2, 4 and 7). Jytdog's instruction that the sources are arranged in descending order of importance, and readers should start at the beginning and read until satisfied is bizarre, and sounds basically like Google. --Tsavage (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: After participating in discussion here for the last month, in addition to my original concern, the following have become apparent:
 * A single, definitive source to support a statement of scientific consensus has not been identified (per WP:RS/AC).
 * Sources that do not directly support the consensus statement are among the 18 citations.
 * The statement "currently marketed" GM food, whether paraphrased or quoted, requires a clear definition of what that comprises; as an unqualified, blanket statement, it is not common knowledge, varies by country (in part based on wide variation in regulations), and for practical purposes is unverifiable (there is no practical way of knowing if "all" food currently on the market meets any particular standard).
 * Further, any consensus statement that implies, broadly and without qualification, that "GM food is safe to eat," is non-neutral and drawing a conclusion from the scientific sources, which say only two things:
 * 1. no harm has been documented to date;
 * 2. evidence to date suggests that the genetic engineering process itself is not more likely to produce results harmful to human health, than conventional breeding methods (with note in the mainstream scientific literature that assessment methods and understanding of food impact on health are still imperfect: "there remain sizeable gaps in our ability to identify compositional changes that result from genetic modification of organisms intended for food; to determine the biological relevance of such changes to human health; and to devise appropriate scientific methods to predict and assess unintended adverse effects on human health.").
 * (comments below follow from the original 31 May "Oppose" statement, not this update) --Tsavage (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * responding to "update" - makes the very wrong claim that the consensus statement 'implies, broadly and without qualification, that "GM food is safe to eat,"  which it most emphatically does not do. Grinding on the always-present lack of perfect knowledge is not only absurd, but ignores the 'relativeness" of the consensus to conventional food, which we are far from perfectly understanding, yet consume every day. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * responding to response to "Update": No claim was made. On the contrary, determining if content is likely to suggest a conclusion that is not explicitly stated is a matter of editorial opinion: in some cases this is more obvious than others, and it is always possible to argue. This is a standard consideration when examining for neutrality any statement summarizing a position in a topic where there is some form of disagreement. And again, with "relativeness of the consensus to conventional food...," you are arguing in the margins what should be clear in the text, but is not - again, other, more informative wording than a contentious, surgically worded consensus statement seems the far better option (putting aside that consensus does not seem to be reliably supported in the first place). --Tsavage (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * the question is - is the content supported by the sources. that does not appear to answer the question, but to be dealing with something else. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC))


 * That is what I answered, and to restate: No, in current form with 18 or so cited sources, the overall citation does not support the statement "broad scientific consensus," by failing to provide the reasonably accessible verifiability expected of a Wikipedia article. This idea of open-ended verification, with a potentially infinite number of sources to choose from (18 is well on the way to infinity IMO) is not functional. Read statement > read sourcing. If the sources require hours of reading, that does not work, I want to read exactly what the encyclopedia based the statement on, not just on some of it. If the sources all say the same thing, most are redundant and can be removed; if they do not, the conclusion is synthesis. If the mountain of available evidence adds up to what can be characterized as "broad consensus," it should be no trouble at all to find a couple of sources to say that, so just include those. Why should I support a malformed piece of content, where verifiability is totally compromised by 18 citations? I don't. --Tsavage (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * PS: I am not suggesting (or hoping) that we suppress or water down or otherwise reduce or conceal the reality of what review studies and medical and scientific organizations have said, individually and collectively, just that a handy sweeping statement like "broad scientific consensus" is powerful in its ability to obscure and inhibit critical thinking as catchphrases tend to be, and it should not be deployed without concrete sourcing. There are many other strong ways to represent the same information, such as with quotes, which are easily verifiable - we should source "broad consensus" properly, or seek alternative wording. --Tsavage (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, you are asking people to iVote on what is a clear violation of our PAGs. In case you don't understand what this means, please read:
 * Via WP:SYNTH Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
 * Not only have you failed to provide a source supporting your statement, but the conclusion you've reached from your sources is in direct contradiction to other RS is being ignored. Those sources state that the science on GMO safety is inconclusive.


 * Via Hilbeck et al. Environmental Sciences Europe (2015) The Cartagena Protocol and Codex share a precautionary approach to GM crops and foods, in that they agree that genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required before GM organisms are used in food or released into the environment. These agreements would never have been negotiated, and the implementation processes elaborating how such safety assessments should be conducted would not currently be happening, without widespread international recognition of the risks posed by GM crops and foods and the unresolved state of existing scientific understanding.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   18:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * we clearly disagree on how to interpret policy. and the source you choose is by an advocacy group printed in a predatory journal, per predatory publishers; not something to give much WEIGHT to. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC) (strike incorrect statement Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC))
 * Environmental Sciences Europe is not listed on the source you cite. I think you must be confusing it with European Environmental Sciences and Ecology Journal, which is on that list, but is not the journal we are discussing. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose The use of "broad scientific consensus" is not expressly stated in the sources. Since it cant be found it is not verifiable and likely OR by synthesis. Per WP:OR "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Since it is not stated in the sources, it is OR. AlbinoFerret 18:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Source and location for the claim were provided, strike oppose. AlbinoFerret 01:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose We do not determine whether scientific consensus exists by examining all the papers written, but should rely on review articles. Domingo & Bordonaba 2011 says no consensus exists.  Domingo had written other review studies in 2000 and 2006 which made similar conclusions and one is cited in the UN's International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development 2009, Global Report, p. 394, which concludes no consensus exists.  The UN report in turn is relied on in "Understanding GMO" on the David Suzuki Foundation website.  While these sources could all be wrong, we would need a source that says so.  Domingo's study has 116 cites on Google scholar, so it is not as if it is obscure.  TFD (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * as mentioned below, Domingo is a "significant minority" in my view. scientific consensus doesn't mean unanimity.  similar to global warming. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While one expects to find differences of opinion in primary studies, review studies are supposed to be an objective reporting of the existing literature, and are the sources considered most reliable in MEDRS. If it indeed represents a minority view, it should not have been published or should be retracted.  At least, it should have attracted condemnation in the literature.  And we should have another review study that comes to another conclusion.  TFD (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue here TfD is that the issue is controversial. As I said, Domingo is a credible minority.  You can't just pick a review and say "that one" - you have to read a lot of reliable secondary sources and understand the story.  This is the essence of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.  Domingo's views are not shared by the consensus - this is clear as day when you read the literature. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The main source that backs up the current claim is the AAAS statement. The WHO citation remains very unpopular. I have reviewed the "Report 2" citation below and found that it does not claim there is a scientific consensus on the issue. The "10 Decades of EU Research" paper focuses on many GMO issues, and the citations for the health section were not a strong point. I have already stated my opposition to the AAAS statement. But, if we're to take the AAAS statement as unbiased, I think the "No Consensus" letter should also be taken as unbiased.
 * You don't have to claim bias to attempt to put a set of claims in perspective. Even in Domingo, a clear majority of studies find "no effect". Lfstevens (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Domingo I have seen says it's 50/50 - half of the studies did raise "serious concerns": An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. which one were you referencing?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally, there are credible sources that explicitly state that there is no scientific consensus, including the UN assessment cited in this discussion and the AND report. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This point is so contentious that I'm beginning to think that it warrants an article of its own. "Controversies" covers many topics beyond the state of the scientific consensus. Lfstevens (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Genetic modification is a particularly well-studied topic and the conclusions that it is both safe and not unhealthy are fairly uncontroverseial within the communities who study these topics. The sources cited demonstrate this. Alternative sources that are being offered to counter this point are either to less highly-regarded journals, discredited scientists, or in the context of politics rather than science. As WP:CBALL seems to be a reasonable thing upon which to hang our hat, it seems reasonable that we tell the reader simply that GM food is regarded scientifically as safe and not unhealthy. Calls for more transparent and independent testing of GM foods by, for example, UCS, can find their way into the article, but do not seem relevant for the question being posed in this RfC. jps (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is another example of an editor who has allowed his belief in the safety of GMO food to cloud his judgment regarding whether the article's existing sources support the existing content. His first sentence casts doubt about his conclusion because it adds opinion that should not be needed if the existing citations adequately support the content. [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies/FAQ]: "...[T]he talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic." GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose but mainly on an (I think important) issue of pedantry. In addition to souring problems I think that the wording sequence is leading and misrepresentatively positive.  A better wording sequence, I think, would be, "A broad scientific consensus holds that GM food, as currently marketed, poses no greater risk than conventional food."  I think that an important distinction needs to clearly presented between the present and any potential future.  I think that there are two main issues here.  1. while science is, by "nature", arguably the purest of all things, scientists can be extraordinarily corrupt.  Simple reference to the history of smoking confirms this.  2. The world population is increasing at a far greater rate than improvements in food production can possibly match.  Highly populated countries like the UK and Japan import food from countries that people are leaving.  These people typically then want to move to already overcrowded countries and the food markets are placed under ever greater pressures.  Who is to say, in such a context, which compromises scientists may opt for in potentially well intentioned pursuit of increased yields?  We must also use citations that back the contents being presented.  GregKaye 14:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TFD. It is not Wikipedia's job to determine if a scientific consensus exists by examining the research and coming to a sage conclusion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the content is directly supported by the sources. please see below. strange. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not strange at all, nor especially complicated. We have to rely upon review articles that assess the literature. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support even as amended by Jytdog. The sources listed at the top of this RfC clearly show scientific consensus and is very much in line with WP:RS/AC and represent the sources accurately per WP:WEIGHT and is not original research. I recently went through many of those sources and specifically pulled out the piece of content that supports the statement this conversation here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * With the sources clearly stating there is consensus, I wanted to summarize a few issues that are largely invalid after reading over this conversation too in my !vote. There are some common misunderstandings about how scientific discourse works in this discussion, so the closer should be wary from a weight perspective about arguments some are making:
 * Some have taken issue with the term "broad" in the scientific consensus statement. Scientific consensus is by definition broad agreement by scientists on a topic. Including broad may be redundant and not necessarily needed in the text, but it does drive home the point for readers who aren't entirely familiar with what academic consensus means. Including broad in this context would not be original research as it is not changing the meaning of what the other sources describe.
 * Some have pointed to a small number of sources saying there is no consensus. A consensus statement cannot be invalidated by a single source or even a handful presented. What we need are the major organizations that have said there is a consensus to show that the evidence has changed. Academic consensus is not unanimity because you can still get publications pushing WP:FRINGE views or novel ideas that don't have acceptance yet. What matters is overall agreement, and that's what the sources currently show when the sources are weighed against each other.
 * As an additional note for the closer, this is a controversial topic in the real world in terms of the general public vs. science perspectives. Similar to climate change, evolution, vaccines, etc. statements of scientific consensus tend to get vehemently challenged by certain groups through various logical fallacies, political tactics, etc. we see a lot of similar arguments made by fringe proponents in this topic in the real world. A lot of those arguments filter through into some of the oppose editors' comments and citations here (not to comment on actual editor behavior). Hopefully the closer will be somewhat familiar with what makes a scientific consensus and the various tactics used by fringe proponents in controversial topics dealing with scientific consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDDATE has been brought up where sources older than 5 years are not preferred (but not saying not allowed). In topics that are changing quickly in medicine that are constantly being updated, we tend to red flag older sources to almost require newer ones. This topic is different because once scientific is consensus is achieved, most scientists move on to other topics rather than republishing the same statement every five years. In this case, we're likely to see older sources with less recent mentions because of exactly that. If the sources themselves are no longer valid because they have dated claims due to consensus changing, there will be a plethora of strong sources stating they've changed to no consensus or stating the specific problems. There's been plenty of discussion in the discussion section below, so if anyone wants to continue addressing anything I mentioned, best to do it there rather than in the survey section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * One problem I have with your list,, is that many of the sources in your list are not mentioned in the actual article. You seem to be pulling that list from a completely different article than the one we are discussing. You also seem to be a bit sloppy in your analysis. For example, the AAAS citation contrasts GMO food with "conventional plant breeding techniques" rather than "conventional food." Some readers might not consider some food derived from "conventional plant breeding techniques," as that term is used by the AAAS, to be, itself, conventional. For example, Dr. William Davis argues that dwarf wheat, which was created from non-GMO plant breeding techniques, is harmful. The AAAS seems to be comparing GMO food to foods like dwarf wheat, not to un-engineered, unprocessed foods that have been found in nature in its original form. The sentence from your second listed citation has a similar flaw. Some of your other quotations from the sources fail to distinguish between establishing "no greater risk to human health than conventional food" and lesser claims, like no risks being currently identified. Yet another problem I have with your list is that your do not even begin to address issues of citation reliability. For example, the AAAS statement is an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed academic journal. GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I took a close look at the third source. (Note that it is cited in the body but not in the opening of the article.) The source appears to be a research paper rather than experimental research, so it is only as valuable as its sources. Its sources, besides being very old or difficult to find online, appear to only support the claim that "...the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health..." rather than the much bolder claim that "[t]here is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." Again, "conventional food" and "food from conventional breeding" are not necessarily equivalent, and are arguably mutually exclusive. GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, please read WP:MEDRS The source is as review, which is one of our best types of sources to reach for in terms of reliability and what we are called to use by policy. The source says what it says as quoted and trying to make a distinction between "conventional food" and "food from conventional breeding" is a misrepresentation of the source as the phrases are used interchangably. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence you pulled from the fourth source is simply not equivalent to the claim that "[t]here is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." It says nothing about any consensus. Furthermore, the failure to identify "overt consequences on human health" from Google and PubMed searches hardly proves that GMO crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food. GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * First, please read WP:BLUDGEON as the way you are acting in this RfC is not appropriate. As for the rest of your comments, the sources clearly establish the consensus. It is a common tactic of WP:FRINGE proponents to attack such statements by trying to nitpick saying that what one source said is slightly different than another to cast doubt. It happens all the time in other topics like global warming, evolution, etc. and it's not going to hold any weight here. There appears to be some fundamental misunderstandings about crop breeding and WP:MEDRS on your part, but a survey section is not a place to engage is discussion like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * These are nothing more than baseless personal attacks. If you cannot find any substantive support for your position despite a mountain of citations your position is probably indefensible. GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to discuss behavior further on an article talk page, but a few people have warned you now, so please actually read what the issues are. Substantive support has already been found in the numerous sources regardless of how someone tries to split hairs. In each case above and below, you are just saying the content doesn't support the currently discussed content. However, they all come back to the same idea that currently marketed GM food is safe to eat, no issues have been found in terms of safety in the literature, and there aren't any significantly different safety risks between conventional and GM. Those are all sides of the same coin, so your argument is currently boiling down to saying the words are different without showing that the content and overall message is different in the sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The partial sentence you took from the fifth source in your list does not support the claim made in the article. Even if it did, the source is merely an opinion piece that cites no research. (And notice that it is not listed as a source in the actual article.) GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is Scientific American, which is generally considered a reliable source for more meta discussions on science. The source says "despite overwhelming evidence that GM crops are safe to eat", which is equivalent to the content being discussed here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence that you list from the sixth source is not equivalent to the claim in the article because it says nothing about any kind of consensus and makes no comparison between GMO food and "conventional food." GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The source says, ""GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health." The source again matches the content being discussed as it is a definitive statement from a MEDRS source. It's still supporting the idea that GM food is "safe" to eat, which means it's not different from conventional in terms of safety. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The statement Kingofaces draws from the FAO source has three major problems. First, it includes the qualifier "currently available." Thus, it makes no assurances regarding any foods made available after (approximately) 2003. The Wikipedia article, and the paragraph listed above, include no such qualification. Second, the excerpt uses the subjective word "safe" rather than the article's objective comparison to "conventional food." A level of risk that one reader might consider acceptable might not be acceptable to another reader. For example, a food critic might be willing to accept a higher risk of eating unhealthy food than someone who suffers from a severe digestive disease. Without knowing what the authors consider "safe" and how it compares to the risks involved in eating "conventional food," we cannot safely interpret the excerpt as indicating that GMO food "...poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." The third problem with the FAO excerpt is that, based its wording, it seems to be merely passing on an opinion given in the 2003 ICSU report rather than expressing the FAO's own opinion. That conclusion is strengthened by the sentence: "The scientific evidence presented in this chapter relies largely on a [2003] report from the [ICSU]." When the FAO does start to speak in its own words, it expresses words of caution about GMO food: "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." GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We cannot test what isn't available to test yet. That is exactly why the term currently available it used. One could potentially have the whole science philosophy 101 discussion here to explain why trying to dispute a "current evidence" claim because it only applies to now is fallacious, but that's not a topic for here except that a basic understanding of how scientific evidence is assessed is required to be discuss competently in a conversation over scientific consensus. In the end, the source says what it says. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence Kingofaces quotes from the eighth source (first bullet in the eighth citation above, not cited in the actual article) includes claims that are not sourced in any way. GrayDuck156 (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A very strange stipulation you came up with there that I'm not seeing the logic behind. Not being included in the current article does not exclude the source from demonstrating the scientific consensus. Again, the reliable source says what it says. Also, please take discussion to the discussion section rather than filling up the survey section like this. We generally try to keep the survey sections of RfCS just for votes and brief clarifications and comments. Extensive discussion belongs in the discussion area. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence Kingofaces quotes from the ninth source (second bullet in the eighth citation above, not cited in the actual article) does not mention any kind of consensus. The URL is also a dead link, which means that the content could be obsolete or that the authors no longer stand by the assertions. The dead link also means that most of the paper's sources cannot be identified. Another problem with the citation is that the authors are German, so their beliefs might not fully apply outside of Europe. Yet another problem is that the paper appears to be about a decade old, so the conclusions might no longer apply. Finally, the paper appears to assume that a lack of evidence is necessarily evidence of lack. Without clinical trials involving large numbers of people over long periods of time, actual harm might be going unidentified. GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, cited or not in the article is irrelevant in this particular conversation at the moment. The source is archived here. Considering that it was even archived today seems to suggest some temporary error with the host. Most of the rest of GrayDuck's comments go in to original research territory in the criticism of the source that clearly states, "The report concludes that food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from “conventional” food." Again, very much in line with the content being discussed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was asked to comment, but I have no involvement in this issue and can't really give an opinion. What seems clear is that the sources could be presented better. No quote is given from the WHO, either in the paragraph or footnote, and its position doesn't really support the paragraph. Also, the quote from the FAO has left out the part where they express doubt. So those quotes should be added to the footnote (if the others are going to remain) and the paragraph tweaked accordingly. Part of the WHO's statement could be included in the paragraph as it's more nuanced and represents something other than the US/UK view. The WHO says: "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. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.'" The FAO says (after the paragraph already quoted): "'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. ...'" Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * currently marketed food has been assessed on a case by case basis. that is the point of specifying "currently marketed" instead of mentioning some vague notion of all possible GM food, of which many very harmful kinds can be imagined. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is the RS for this? RS indicate otherwise:  "FDA has set up a voluntary consultation process to engage with the developers of genetically engineered plants to help ensure the safety of food from these products." (source:here). The AMA policy statement (source 4) advocates shifting from voluntary to mandatory testing  (see also  this article).  This article you provided me with here explains how regulation of GMO's in the U.S. is now more lax than in the E.U. David Tornheim (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that the current paragraph focuses on parts of sources that offer certainty and not on parts that offer nuance. And the footnote quotes other sources but not the WHO, and not the FAO paragraph that introduces doubt. Both issues should be fixed. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added (to the footnote) the WHO quote, the second para of the FAO, and a journal quote that directly supports the sentence. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per general issues with the wording of the part of the lead/info in question. One of the sources states, "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." None of the other sources use broad in a way similar to how this article does. We say "[GM Foods] poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food", which isn't the same thing as being "safe to eat". Since we are using the term "broad scientific consensus", all the sources need to agree explicitly on any statement we make. Even if they do, combining the sources and making a blanket statement like that is explicitly original research, unless they all specifically state what we write here. That is a non-issue really though, because if we have a source that says "There is broad scientific consensus for" whatever, then we can source and state it (assuming it is reliable). We can't however, piece what we perceive the sources to say together, and make a statement.  — Godsy  (TALK CONT ) 03:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We do have a source which uses the phrase "broad scientific consensus". And another source which states:
 * Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”"
 * The problem is that editors like to pretend these sources aren't reliable, so more sources are brought in to support them, but then other editors state that there are so many sources that it must be synth. We do have clear statements of there being a consensus, what we don't have is unanimity which is allowing editors to try and argue that no consensus exists.TypingAway (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I quoted the first source you mention, above. My issue is that we should either quote the sources, or say something equivalent. What we currently have is not stated universally by the sources used to back it up. I would have no issue with quoting the American Association for the Advancement of Science's statement (your second source), and just using that source. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 16:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , two things. First, the amended statement should meet the concern you stated in your original "oppose", correct?  Also, some of the sources are the direct support, and others are examples of institutions within the consensus (like the AMA, which is cited by the AAAS) Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I and others (e.g., Tsavage) have established that the AAAS and AMA are advocacy pieces to oppose mandatory labeling (not scientific studies or review articles), and that Pamela Ronald is a pro-GMO advocate.  No one has been able to establish otherwise.  Meanwhile those supporting the use of these advocacy sources oppose the consideration of sources that say there is no scientific "consensus", dismissing them either because they are not review articles or because they claim the articles are "advocacy"--double standards. David Tornheim (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim that statements by the AMA or AAAS are advocacy is as WP:FRINGE a statement as it gets. Thank you for locating your stance. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One can simply read both statements and see that the primary purpose of each is to advocate against mandatory GMO labeling. The AMA statement also advocates for stronger FDA regulations of GMO foods:  "To better detect potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that pre-market safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement."  Both were for the purpose of influencing the CA Mandatory labeling of Proposition 37 and similar labeling initiatives.  This article published on a web-site by the AAAS says, "Some science groups, including the governing board of AAAS (publisher of ScienceInsider), have opposed the measure."  It is also reported in the Huffington Post here.  This statement is found on the California ballot on Page 57 here:
 * “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.”—American Medical Association, June 2012
 * A similar use of quoting of the AAAS Statement can be found in materials related to the Colorado ballot here.
 * I don't see how saying that the AAAS Statement and AMA statements are "advocacy" is WP:Fringe. You have provided no evidence to prove that. David Tornheim (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, from the AMA web site: "The AMA is aggressively involved in advocacy efforts related to the most vital issues in medicine today. That page lists nearly 50 advocacy areas, and provides links to pages on their specific efforts in Federal Advocacy, Grassroots Advocacy, Political Action, State Advocacy, and Health Policy. So unless I'm missing a more nuanced use of the term advocacy, the AMA is an advocacy group, and it's reasonable to assume ANY of their statements are based on the group's own larger strategic view. Nothing wrong with advocacy, we just have to position in appropriately. --Tsavage (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, for science because FRINGE ideas about health and science have become so prevalent in our society today. WP also stands very solidly on science, per WP:PSCI which is policy.  Please read  WP:Lunatic charlatans.  You too are locating your stance on this questions very clearly on the spectrum of science >> FRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are locating my stance, which in fact has been consistent and about sourcing. WP:PSCI makes no exception to WP:SYNTH, in fact, WP:RS/AC specifically requires exceptional sourcing for statements of scientific consensus. I don't know where you've found me arguing science, this is about verifiability and sourcing. Attempting to collapse editors, opinions, research, you name it, into FRINGE whenever it seems convenient is not sustainable.


 * Meanwhile, with regard to your distinction of pro-science advocacy groups, interpreting and presenting facts in terms favorable to particular outcomes not indicated in the factual material itself is just as possible on any side of an issue: if you're arguing that because AMA advocates for science, it statements are thus not categorizable as advocacy, check our article for a start, which notes:


 * "The AMA has one of the largest political lobbying budgets of any organization in the United States" and includes an interesting Criticisms section, which has a lot to do with improving the position of physicians (malpractice, wages, etc). Among its causes, the AMA in the 1990s supported the War on Drugs, providing medical reasoning for clamping down on marijuana use, which seems a pretty clear case of advocating for a political position.


 * I'm not arguing against the AMA for any reason, merely pointing out that your contention that its statements can't be classified as advocacy, or have some sort of advocacy pass because it is fighting a socially-justified major war on anti-science forces, does not seem to be reality-based. You can't make discussion statements and charges, and expect no reply. --Tsavage (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As the consensus statement is not directly supported, with exact or very close wording from a reliable, independent source per WP:RS/AC, it also contravenes WP:FRINGE, which says, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. It is certainly notable that there are extremely widespread challenges to the safety of GM foods on a number of levels, and from a variety of groups. There is no need here for a constructed consensus statement, when direct quotes from the AAAS and AMA can provide what is being argued is the same information, directly and with attribution, without requiring 18 citations. --Tsavage (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In general, I support the statement, as an accurate description of the scientific analysis of GM foods, and per the apparent lack of changes since 2013 that would warrant a re-evaluation. The sources are the same, and are of the highest possible level of reliability we can reach for scientific statements. Dissenters still exist and are published, which isn't surprising, but there isn't any indication that they have weight comparable to the weight of the sources already being cited.
 * I would note that there are several objections based on SYNTH or V which focus on minor issues that aren't relevant to the fundamental statement the sentence is making. Any objection that the word "broad" is SYNTH can be easily addressed by removing the word "broad," and the meaning of the sentence will remain the same. The objections that "consensus" isn't verified were also addressed last time, and (although it's a straightforward reading of the cited sources) that can likewise be addressed by changing it to a simple statement of fact, e.g. "[Eating] food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk..."
 * None of that is to say that the statement can't be improved on. For example, I would support a clarification that the statement refers specifically to consumption of GM foods. This has always been assumed, but I don't think there's any problem in spelling it out, as long as the wording doesn't carry implications about whether other effects on human health either exist or not. Likewise, I would see no problem with discussing the possible risks of future GM foods in the lead, as long as weight can be established and it's clear which parts of it are speculative. Sunrise (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful comment, it is one of the few that reasonably addresses in detail the LANGUAGE and editorial context. A good deal of the discussion here, while interesting and critical as far as accuracy, seems to largely ignore the equally important aspect of presentation to the general reader. We shouldn't be arguing over a particular phrase like "broad scientific consensus," instead, continually considering the best choices in transparently supported wording, following where the sources lead. --Tsavage (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * To expand and add more analysis to my previous comment, it's perhaps ironic that the effect of focusing on the phrase "broad scientific consensus," if successful in removing it, will presumably be to leave behind only the direct statements of fact. We could easily replace the sentence with things like "no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature" (AMA) and "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies" (EU) and similar statements. The term "scientific consensus" implies the existence of dissent, while straightforward factual statements do not.
 * Also, the list of possible sources continues with those that aren't cited in the article. Putting aside the older statements from the NAS and Royal Society, we could also start taking statements from other well-known scientific organizations (those that are "merely" internationally prominent, rather than the most prestigious in the world!), e.g. , which all contain statements along the same lines. And this is only the list of formal positions of major scientific organizations, not the list of review articles, but those exist too and some are cited in the article. Those are relatively lower quality - specifically, it's the same level of evidence as Domingo - but overall, the small handful of sources disputing this really doesn't compare. It's reasonable to discuss nuances and caveats, but I think the use of "scientific consensus" is itself a more than reasonable compromise. Sunrise (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * My objection has grown from a questioning of 18 or so citations for one statement, to opposition of a monolithic construction like "broad scientific consensus" used in this context, especially when there is a clear alternative available. As it is, that statement is splashed across several GMO articles, and presents a kind of wall, an editorial ultimatum: "Sure, you can wade through (up to 18) sources, or just take our word that the experts agree." In a complicated, controversial current topic like this, saying "just about every scientist agrees," doesn't seem transparent enough. I think many editors are looking at it through too literal a lens, and not trying to read the content as an actual reader would (which is critically important).


 * (And yes, there are "other articles" where perhaps more detail is available, but THIS is the article people are reading. and a sufficient amount of standalone information should be present here.)


 * In this one case, the AAAS statement seems to me fine as an in-text attributed quote (there are arguments that it is a politcal statement, meant to support anti-GMO labeling efforts, and one protested by some of the AAAS own membership, but that aside for now, as it is verifiable from a generally reilable source): "The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." This gets the point across just as clearly as "broad scientific consensus," with more information, and does not put Wikipedia in the tricky position of walking the WP:RS/AC line. Adding a reasonably succinct follow-up on substantial equivalence should overall provide accessible, readable information on the general evidence-based position, more so than a simple blanket statement.


 * Your suggestion that we may be worse off without BSC is only if some editors then chose to blast the article with a dozen quotes, in the same way 18 citations are used (and we've seen that elsewhere). This is simply unnecessary, and bad editing, and bad form if used as a tactic. Our own article on scientific consensus notes: "In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy." In controversial topics, BSC is not necessarily a neutral term, and should be regarded with care. For my part, there is no desire to obscure results, instead to present them to a general reader in an understandable way, not as a take-it-or-leave it pronouncement. There is other, equally clear language available, BSC is not the only option. --Tsavage (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's definitely not the only option, and it's reasonable to discuss others. That said, I would just note that using attribution for formal statements from organizations of this caliber, except when the statements or organizations are themselves of interest, shades into false balance and WP:GEVAL violation. For the purposes of the general reader, it is a take-it-or-leave-it pronouncement, representing the greatest extent of scientific knowledge at the time the statement was written. In terms of the sourcing of scientific facts, it's generally only contestable by an opposing statement from another scientific body of similar or higher standing - of which there are, off-hand, maybe half a dozen in the whole world. (With reasonable caveats; common sense applies, of course.) The AMA, NAS, and Royal Society are also on that list. Sunrise (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as the wording, in principle it seems we are in agreement. As for organizations of such high standing that they're practically beyond questioning, I find that hard to accept, when it doesn't seem that medical science is standing on too firm a footing, given these latest comments from current and past editors in chief of the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, adding to a couple of decades of serious inside charges against medical research in particular, and published scientific research in general. The editor of the Lancet stated a few weeks ago: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness," and went on to indict individual scientists, journals, universities, and government. Two former editors in chief and a former senior editor of the NEJM (currently professors of medicine at Yale, Tufts, and Harvard), published earlier this month a statement in the BMJ, condemning general tolerance for and erosion of protection against conflict of interest at the NEJM. And so forth. So I'm not sure where trust in the organizations that represent this science is to come from. As always, if I've failed to properly decode these and other sources, please let me know! --Tsavage (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Re "practically beyond questioning". That is not the point. We're not claiming that they're right in holding some opinion, just that the consensus does hold it. Science is a process, not an outcome, etc. What would be relevant is for some respected organization to state that GMFs are less safe than conventionals. Lfstevens (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it would be relevant to this particular RfC. The question isn't whether GMO's are safe, dangerous, or whether there is scientific consensus - the RfC question is simply: do the cited sources support the statement (or, are some inadmissible due to advocacy, are others being misrepresented by ignoring nuance and statements that stray from the desired narrative, and so on).   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the Pew source puts the issue to rest. 88% is clearly a consensus. Is there a contradicting source? Even the "equilibrium" Domingo piece, if you count the studies, shows that a majority find no effect. Lfstevens (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the Pew survey, "Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society," is that it is a broad personal opinion poll of scientists, as defined by membership in the AAAS, on a range of issues, and is not any sort of review of scientific findings, therefore, is irrelevant here. Details of the scientist part of the survey include 3,748 respondents, about 48% of whom are in bio/medical sciences, the rest are astronomers, social scientists, computer scientists, mathematicians, physicists, and so forth. The majority opinion of a group of scientists with no particular collective expertise on a topic, is not the same as scientific consensus on that topic. If 88% of astronomers find GM food safe, I don't think that would be adequate support for the RfC statement. --Tsavage (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, for the response, but a "broad personal opinion poll" is my idea of exactly how you (and, e.g., climate change supporters) evaluate consensus, which is about beliefs, not facts. If you want to argue to the contrary, I suggest you try doing so on climate change and see how that goes. Lfstevens (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome; I hadn't realized you were being sarcastic, or arguing from an absurd point of view, is that in protest against those who argue beliefs over facts (what if those beliefs are based on facts?)? Anyhow, your position is a little hard to follow. My own "beliefs" about GMOs haven't come into this, though, I've only been questioning the accessibility of 18 citations, and a broad consensus statement that does not seem to be directly supported by sources, per WP:RS/AC and common sense. It's not my hobby to take contrarian positions, and climate change (and global warming) appear, from skimming and partial reading, to be well-written and informative, unlike this article. --Tsavage (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That wasn't sarcasm. I don't know if you know, but the climate change hypothesis is supported by 96% (or so) of those in a recent poll of scientists. This is widely used to claim the kind of scientific consensus that this article does. That poll also was of "all" scientists, not those in the field. I won't repeat my other comments, but I do stand by them. Lfstevens (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh. In a world where astronomers and computer scientists are entrusted with giving us the thumbs up on food safety, based on their personal opinions as astronomers and computer scientists, things must be pretty messed up. --Tsavage (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This is, in my opinion, the scientific consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the question.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   09:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per Roches following advice given by Roches. Flying Jazz (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several global scientific groups which have expressed that GMO food might not be safe, so there is no consensus. Further, criticism has been made on pro-GMO food safety research which equates it with 1960's tobacco science and that calls into question many of the sources currently in use on this page to support a statement of consensus. LesVegas (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * would you please name major medical or scientific bodies that have said that currently marketed food from GMOs might not be safe? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility is one such org, as is the Royal Society of Canada, and even the American Medical Association’s Council on Science and Public Health. There are also more, but I think that should suffice to suggest that there really is no consensus. LesVegas (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ENSSR is not a major medical scientific/scientific body; it is an advocacy group. And AMA is a source cited here supporting the consensus statement. With regard to the Royal Society of Canada, they have made no statement on GM food that I can find.  There was an expert panel they convened that issued a report away back in 2001 that was widely criticized for taking a fringe-y view on transgenic plants.  Health Canada actually stands solidly in the mainstream scientific consensus, per this page. As I asked originally, what major medical/scientific bodies have said that currently marketed food from GMOs is not safe?  Thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "ENSSR is an advocacy group" - without any supporting reference, this appears to be simply an opinion, rendering it meaningless at best. Please provide proof for this claim.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * from their website: "The purpose of ENSSER is: the advancement of science and research for the protection of the environment, biological diversity and human health against negative impacts of new technologies and their products. ..." Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Appreciated (sorry to frustrate you).
 * So you are saying that ENSSER is not acceptable for this article? You would be simultaneously claiming that any sources interested in the advancement of GM foods and technology would be unacceptable. If this is your take, a next step would be to remove such sources from your "consensus" list.
 * In a similar vein, what is your take on MEDRS as it pertains to MEDDATE? I have seen you remove or reject sources on the claim that MEDRS disallows sources older than 5 years. However in the discussion below, You are supporting 12 year old sources as MEDRS-compliant. Please clarify what the grey area is, exactly, so that we are on the same page.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)



unlike you, i have never proposed partisan sources. I have not proposed nor  (very recent reviews in the peer reviewed literature by Monsanto scientists) nor anything by Jon Entine nor actual industry propaganda like this. On the MEDDATE thing, as i wrote below, the scientific consensus on the relative safety of currently marketed GM food is not hot science. If you understood the science, you would know that there is no reason to even think there would be food safety issues - that is as true today as it was ten years ago. But hey - if you know of any plausible mechanism of toxicity, I am all ears. Really. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure you have never proposed partisan sources, though I acknowledge that is your claim. From a quick glance, I note that 3rd reference in this article comes from the FDA's "Q&A" on GMOs. The FDA is run by Monsanto's ex VP and former chief lobbyist, and cannot be considered anything but partisan. The Q&A reads like something one would expect from a former Monsanto lobbyist. In the list of citations above, there is apparently a conflict of interest with regard to the AAAS' board's statement. And finally, even though I am not a scientist as you and King continue to point out (in violation of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR), I wonder why you refuse to acknowledge that the WHO says it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. You may have chosen only impartial sources, I haven't examined them in depth yet, but you are showing partiality by cherry picking quotations from them. Luckily it doesn't take a scientist to recognize POV.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   08:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was right to hesitate believing you had never used or suggested partisan sources. (Thanks Tsavage for pointing this out) "The AAAS document, "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods," is a position piece opposing mandatory labeling legislation in the US."   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the content doesn't talk about "all GM foods", and i am not talking about that either. and since 2009 the FDA has been run by Margaret Hamburg who is a freaking hero and never worked for Monsanto, and as of very recently, the FDA is being run by Stephen Ostroff who also never worked for Monsanto. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, here are better details: The FDA's Michael R. Taylor, the former second-in-command at the agency -- and recently hired by the Obama administration as a "consultant" -- used to work as part of the legal team for Monsanto, the creator of the rBGH product called Posilac. After leaving the FDA, Taylor went to the Department of Agriculture, where he quickly and quietly helped get rBGH approved for consumer use.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * he was appointed by margaret hamburg, who i told you is a hero, and he has probably done more than anyone else in recent history to fight industry to improve food safety in the US. See what Marion Nestle said about him here. Please remember that BLP applies on article Talk pages.  And please do your homework before you make big claims.  Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The ENSSER doesn't do research, their budget is less than $50,000, they don't even have a Wikipedia page. The ENSSER is just a couple of people who got together and decided to call themselves the "European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility" and partake in some political activism.TypingAway (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * and : Speaking of doing homework before making "big claims":  Do you have any reliable sources supporting the above statement?  According to this, published in Springer-Verlag, it is a non-profit with 7 board members and their web-site mentions at least five funding sources (two from foundations).  I am puzzled by claims that ENSSER is an "activist" organization.  Is it defined as "activist" entity simply because it is independent of corporate ties, because it is is committed to something crazy like food safety or because it issues statements that are contrary to industry propaganda?  I would like to see the definition of "activist" organization and how it applies to ENSSER. David Tornheim (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * With reguard to their finances I was refering to the 2012 budget they have on their site which is admittedly dated. As for being an activist organization, the reason is because that is simply what they are. They're not a research organization, they're not a corporate organization, they are literally an organization that just participates in activism.TypingAway (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. You replied:  "As for being an activist organization, the reason is because that is simply what they are."  That's circular.  Please cite policy or guideline to back up your assertion.  The ENSSER web-site clearly identifies them as a non-profit.  Their mission statement is: "'the advancement of science and research for the protection of the environment, biological diversity and human health against negative impacts of new technologies and their products. This especially includes the support and protection of independent and critical research to advance the scientific assessment of the potentially negative impacts. The purpose of the by-laws is the realization of research projects, the award of research assignments to third parties, the realization of scientific events, presentation and discussion of scientific work to the relevant audience, and the advancement of the European and international discourse on the risks and benefits of new technologies and on their regulation.' here" I am confused as to how this meets a definition of "activism".  Please clarify. David Tornheim (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The ENSSER isn't claiming to have done research, they simply published the review from a body of 300 PHDs, half of whom identified as pro-GMO. Their conclusion doesn't represent activism, which implies POV, but rather they state that danger from GM foods cannot be proven. The part those who support te claim of safety consensus are simply opposed to the other part of their findings, which is that safety also cannot be proven yet. Your opinion of the publisher of the paper is quite irrelevant, one needs to find the contents of the paper faulty to claim the review carries no WEIGHT.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was specifically responding to the claim that they are a "major scientific body", and was not even aware of their specific statement. As far as their statement is concerned it holds little more weight than this petition signed by over 2,300 engineering and architectural professionals asking for an investigation into whether 9/11 was an inside job. A random collection of people with phDs? Engineers, entomologists, juris doctorates, physicists, geophysists, people whose credentials include no additional information beyond "phD"? The very fact that they feel the need to create a petition to argue that there is no scientific consensus only reaffirms their own minority status.TypingAway (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are correct that the AMA took some positive stances on GMO's, but that is a binary outlook at best. The AMA-ASSN stated a small potential for adverse events exists, due mainly to horizontal gene transfer, allergenicity, and toxicity. That is similar to statements by the National Academy of Sciences, for instance, that genetic modification carries the potential to result in unintended changes in the composition of the food. Yet these organizations are used on this article as though they give wholehearted support for genetic modification. And yes, there's plenty of organizations that are skeptical. Yes, Health Canada had positive findings, but again, the Royal Society of Canada stated that GM foods could cause "a range of collateral changes in expression of other genes, changes in the pattern of proteins produced and/or changes in metabolic activities". You also have the British Medical Association stating, “Many unanswered questions remain, particularly with regard to the potential long-term impact of GM foods on human health and on the environment." As for the ENSSER, I'm not sure a large body of scientists forming an independent group should necessarily be labeled an advocacy group. It's not the same as the Institute for Responsible Technology, which I think is just Jeffrey Smith. We are talking about a group of several hundred scientists and I think that weighs. But certainly the others do, too. And when you really examine many of the "pro" statements you find they're not as pro as you think, that often there are reservations and they leave also leave the door open for unknown health problems that may occur. I want to reemphasize that consensus statements cannot glance over major orgs like these and that we have to express organizations' whole statements. Despite your excellent arguments, I'm still not convinced otherwise and I'm still very much *Opposed to the measure. LesVegas (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * argh. Royal Society of Canada has said nothing about GMOs. a committee they gathered did.  And even the recent AMA committee said "Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature." The risk they talk about is for theoretical GM foods. And the BMA says "In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionallfoodsy derived ."  There is a scientific consensus on the relative safety of currently marketed GM food. Nobody says it is perfectly safe. The  freakshow that Jeffrey Smith, ENSSR, and Seralini put on is way way outside the consensus.  Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Jytdog, but you haven't convinced me that the ENSSER are a freak show group of fringe thinkers. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes, Wikipedia describes disputes. A group of scientists' voices should not be silenced by a Wikipedia that steamrolls over their tongues on their way to a fairytale land of establishment consensus that doesn't truly exist anyway. It wasn't a committee that the Royal Society of Canada gathered. It was an expert panel on the future of food biotechnology which was prepared by the Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada. And I know the AMA and others have taken a strong pro-GMO safety stance, and I want you to know I'm not denying that. But you should be aware that you're denying their caveats and concerns, small though they are, in an attempt to create a binary reality of "safe vs unsafe" on this page which doesn't exist in reality. And I'm not arguing that Jeffrey Smith should be included in a discussion on scientific consensus, because he's an activist and not a scientist. I only brought him up to contrast his institute with ENSSER, and because you were trying to characterize the ENSSER with his org, and it's not that at all.  LesVegas (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * yep it is clear you are committed. and the statement isn't binary or absolute, it is relative. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. The content is verifiable per reliable sources and satisfies the required neutral point of view given the weight of the sources provided. For example, "The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques", AAAS, 2012.— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How did you conclude that an opinion piece on a web site is a "reliable source"? How did you conclude that "foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques" is equivalent to "conventional food"? If this source is so strong and you do not see fit to comment on the other sources, why not support their removal? GrayDuck156 (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "broad scientific consensus" line is only expressly supported by one of the sources used as references. The remaining are used to back up that one source by synthesis. That is OR and since WP:OR is one of the five pillars it can not be allowed to remain. At most this RFC will do is create a local consensus that cant override a core policy. If the sources that do not expressly make the claim are removed, I would support the RFC. AlbinoFerret  19:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the claim of SYN is not tenable. VERIFY does not mean word-for-word support.  The AAAS source (which says "no riskier than" which is the same thing as "as safe as") directly supports the claim - it in turn cites the WHO, AMA, NAS, BRS, which we also cite, following AAAS.  Where are you coming from on the SYN thing?  Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Why do you believe that the AAAS statement substantiates the statement? It says absolutely nothing about "conventional food." It is only comparing GMO food to foods produced using "conventional plant improvement techniques." Even one of the cited sources warns that non-GMO forms of genetic engineering are potentially much more dangerous than foods evolved naturally. Specifically, the German source listed second under the eighth citation states that "...conventional breeding has for long treated seeds with mutagenic chemicals or high energy radiation (γ-rays from a cobalt radiation source) to promote random mutations in the hope that some of them may be beneficial; the potential dangers from such mutations are very much higher than those both from transgenic plants or, indeed, from the natural mutations which occur continually in all living organisms." GrayDuck156 (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont believe that the AAAS source supports the "broad scientific consensus" claim because it does not expressly state it. The lone source that comes close is the Pamela Ronald review article "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." but I am having second thoughts that this backs up the claim. Because there is no mention of "GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" but that there is consensus that they are safe to eat. It is starting to look like I was right in the beginning that this is one big bunch of OR synthesis. Taking parts from different sources and coming up with a claim that none of them expressly state. AlbinoFerret  00:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Pew study is enough for me, especially in the absence of countervailing evidence. I would however have no problem with referring to what it says more precisely. Lfstevens (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Pew survey results are not a reliable representation of the beliefs of scientists who have studied genetically-modified food. While the headlines gave the impression that one of the two surveys was a random sample of scientists, it was actually nothing of the sort. In reality, it was a sample of the members of the AAAS. Using the membership of the AAAS as a proxy for scientists has two problems. First, the AAAS includes non-scientists and scientists who do not specialize in fields related to genetically-modified foods. Thus, the so-called "scientists" sample might have included very few--if any--people who actually work in fields that would give them relevant expertise beyond that of the general public. Second, the AAAS is a public-policy advocacy organization that has taken a position on genetically-modified foods. Thus, the sample was biased in favor of support for GMO foods. Yet another problem with that survey was that the staff of the AAAS picked the sample. That was a serious conflict-of-interest weakness in the survey. The survey had a number of other weaknesses, as well. GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't say that the consensus is "among scientists who have studied GMF", just like the climate change article. Lfstevens (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does say the consensus is among scientists who study GMO food. The words "scientific consensus" is hyperlinked to an article that indicates that a scientific consensus is specific to the scientists "...in a particular field of study." Moreover, a survey is only representative of the scientists in the field if the sampling method was unbiased. It clearly was not unbiased. GrayDuck156 (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, the sourcing actually could support even stronger wording, but the existing carefully-qualified statement is a good compromise.  20:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem, as Sarah SV points out, is that this exact same sourcing also supports a statement which includes nuance and doubt, making a sweeping safety claim unsupported. At WP we should be summarizing all reliable sources on the matter, instead of cherry-picking sources and content from within them whilst ignoring anything that doesn't fit a certain (pro-GMO) POV (see WP:ASSERT).   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * SV's comments have been covered by others already. Be careful that you're commenting on the actual article content here, the statement isn't that "GM foods are perfectly safe" or even that "GM foods that are currently marketed are perfectly safe" but rather the statement is qualified to currently marketed foods and makes only a comparative statement of safety as compared to non-GM foods.  This is supported by the sourcing provided.   21:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The actual article content under discussion is an example of SYNTH and OR (by way of "summarizing" one editor's choice of references, not all of them MEDRS, even though the subject is human health). Tsavage elucidates the SYNTH issue here. This RfC asks us to iVote not on whether the sentence summarizes all the RS available, but whether it summarizes only the chosen sources and content within them. This ignores issues of NPOV, and frankly, truth. Wikipedia has been called out by a large group of independent scientists for misrepresenting facts by printing this very statement. It seems we are to believe that a few anonymous WP editors should be trusted with properly and neutrally summarizing GM science, and ignore all evidence to the contrary.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * be careful about making arguments regarding article content based on what you personally might perceive as "truth", we don't base article content on the personal views of Wikipedia editors, and (as it should be obvious) not everyone agrees with each other on what the truth might be, which is why we all need to stick to high-quality, authoritative sources. The problems with using a statement by an ad-hoc advocacy group like the ENSSER have been pointed out repeatedly to you already, and it's disappointing you are still pointing to it as if it were on par with the other sources. Regarding a possible SYNTH issue, honestly the AAAS or the WHO statements individually could be used to support "Currently-marketed GM foods are just as safe as conventionally-improved foods" without the further qualfication about "broad scientific consensus" (this is what I meant by saying that a stronger statement could be made), and only one source is really needed. But it's become apparent over time our readers demand more support for this statement so that's why so many more sources have been added.  Besides, the AAAS statement itself mentions the WHO, the AMA and the NAS explicitly in their statement so I don't see how it's a problem if we're using the AAAS as a secondary source summarizing statements from those organization as primary sources to provide links to those statements as a convenience to reader.   01:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been stated by one or two editors that the ENSSER is a biased source, however I have not been provided any substantiating evidence of that, it is only an opinion. Of the 300 scientists, doctors and PHDs involved in the paper, half of them were pro-GMO, and the paper reflected the truly neutral nature of the body of scientists - they said there is no consensus that GM foods are either safe or dangerous. (You have no idea what I perceive as truth so leave personal comments out, please.)
 * Gray Duck said it well, so I'm going to partially repeat their recent post - some very important facts are being ignored:
 * "According to WP:RS/AC, "[t]he statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. ...[a]ny statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." None of the sources directly state that such a consensus exists as stated in the article. The only one that comes close is the AAAS citation. However, the AAAS opinion piece has two problems. First, it uses the phrase "conventional plant improvement techniques" rather than "conventional food." That difference is problematic because "conventional food" arguably does not include any genetically engineered food at all whereas "conventional plant improvement techniques" arguably do include plants that are genetically engineered without genetically-modified organisms. At least one author, Dr. William Davis, argues that some non-GMO genetic engineering has been very harmful. The other problem with the AAAS source is that it is not a reliable source. According to WP:RELIABLE, "[a]rticles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources... Questionable sources are those...which rely heavily on...personal opinions." The AAAS statement does not meet these criteria for several reasons. First, it is an opinion piece rather than a peer-reviewed article. Second, the source undermines its credibility by including a claim that is not true. Specifically, it argues that "...the World Health Organization...has come to the...conclusion [that] consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." We know, from extensive discussion in a thread above, that the WHO has not come to that conclusion. Third, the AAAS citation cannot necessarily be considered to be third-party. Whether the source is third-party is not clear because we do not know that the members of the AAAS board have no conflicts of interest."   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Note - This RFC is a bit backward. The typical RFC suggests a change to the existing article; if there is consensus supporting the change, it happens, otherwise the article remains at status quo ante.  This RFC is asking for support of the status quo ante .  I'm not exactly sure what is supposed to happen if the result is "No consensus"?    21:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Just prior to this RfC, attention was on the previous thread, where sourcing was being discussed. The best I can make out, this RfC is an attempt to validate the large number of sources en masse. If the citations are scrutinized and there is no adequate sourcing, then the statement cannot stand. If there is adequate sourcing, then we are left with an easily verifiable statement. --Tsavage (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * i actually did it this way on purpose. doing it the standard way (so that "no consensus" would support the status quo) would have been kind of gaming the system in my view.  The consensus statement is getting a fresh test.  if there is no consensus then we have to rework the statement. It is also the same way we did it last time.  Tsavage I launched the RfC because many comments in the thread went beyond sourcing and claimed that the consensus statement itself needed to go. If the close is "support" we can certainly talk about trimming sources, btw.  Just like we can talk about the WHO source. (Tsavage I have to say that I find your "oppose" on the basis that there are too many sources, bizarre. if there are three sources that do the job, we are good to go. we can trim sources later, if everybody can agree on which three sources are sufficient) Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My questioning the large number of sources, the 18 or so citations, has been clearly explained. I was originally looking at it simply from an editorial point of view: I found that 18 citations made it look like the statement was in doubt, or being pushed. Equally, I found it unrealistic to verify the statement with so many sources. In discussing individual sources, the issue of wording of the statement shouldn't come up, because, per WP:RS/AC, if we are saying there is academic or scientific consensus, so must say the sources, directly in that language. If some sources don't quite say that, and there is discussion over interpretation, then of course the wording of the statement may come up as well (you changed the RfC statement to clarify it in mid-discussion, so presentation must be significant). If a source says, "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies," but does not go on to explicitly summarize that as "scientific consensus," then the statement is not supported: how do I know that there aren't 1,000 independent research groups, 50 years of research, and 260 research projects? For the consensus statement, a single solidly reliable source must do the job. Additional sources should only echo what the first source says, and be provided in reasonable number, like one or two, simply for accessible reader assurance. Anything else is synthesis, requiring the combination of two or more sources to support the article statement. If I'm horribly misguided here, please let me know! --Tsavage (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "This RFC is asking for support of the 'status quo ante'." No it is not. The paragraph at issue does not exist currently in the article. Look more closely at the actual article. GrayDuck156 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support When the AAAS and the NAS, two of the most prestigious scientific institutions in the world come to the same conclusion, scientific consensus is established. I am particularly saddened by the promotion of the advocacy group ENSSER as being anywhere on par with these institutions. Their "No consensus" opinion is basically the A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism of the consensus of evolution, applied to the GMO consensus.  Yobol (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific about the NAS source. Which sentence, on which page, directly supports the claim that "[t]here is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food"? How did you conclude that an opinion piece on a web site (the AAAS source) is a reliable source? How did you conclude that "foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques" are equivalent to "conventional food"? (The former phrase seems to be referring to foods derived from traditional genetic engineering whereas the latter could be referring to foods in their original form in nature.) GrayDuck156 (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Page 8 of the NAS source which states "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population." Also note that the AAAS source cites the broad conesensus, and is a position statement, not an "opinion statement" and is therefore a high quality source.  Again, we have two of the most prestigious scientific institutions in the world stating this, no advocacy group press release or minor study in a low impact journal can change this consensus. Yobol (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That statement is not equivalent to the claim in the article--not even close. If you really think the differences between the two statements are not significant, why not support changing the sentence to more closely reflect the actual source? For example, why not support changing it to a sentence like: "The leadership of a national science organization in the United States has asserted that no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population"? GrayDuck156 (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The NAS statement backs up the AAAS statement, which frankly supports the statement adequately all by itself. I support the current wording and sourcing because it is abundantly clear there is a consensus and weasel wording as if only one organization believes it is true violates WP:NPOV when the consensus of all major oragnizations is that there is no safety risk above conventional foods. Yobol (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: No, The sources do not support the content. I am opposing on the issue of the past "sell-by-date" of some of the sources. It is evident to me that it is futile to try to discuss trimming off some of the older references. Using "sources as a weapon" to fend off negative changes to this article is a ridiculous concept to me. This article is clearly under ownership to maintain the status-quo. I really wished to comment in another section, but even a cat only has nine lives. I don't haz battlegrounds.  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 15:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: No.  (Update based on reading more recent entries David Tornheim (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC))
 * The sources do not support the statement.
 * The statement is WP:OR and WP:SYN.
 * Many of the sources do not make the direct statement made in the claim.
 * The only sources that even mention a scientific "consensus" are advocacy (e.g. AAAS).
 * per arguments made by petrarchan47  (here), groupuscle, Tsavage,GrayDuck156,  66.169.76.198 and, especially comments that show problems with each of the sources proposed to defend the RfC statement, such as those compiled by  petrarchan47  (here) -and- the summary statements by GrayDuck156 here regarding the failure of those supporting the use of the 18 sources to provide valid arguments in their favor. (revised David Tornheim (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC))
 * The AAAS and AMA statements are "advocacy" not scientific review articles.
 * Those arguing for the inclusion of these statements are using a double standard and refusing to consider RS and material from other sources that say there is no such scientific "consensus" by simply labeling them advocacy. See here,here,here,here,here,here,here
 * AAAS:
 * This statement is "advocacy" to oppose the California ballot measure for mandatory labeling. (see here.)
 * There are only two footnotes.
 * AMA:
 * Also an "advocacy" statement to oppose mandatory labeling. (see here.)
 * Pamela Ronald is a Pro-GMO advocate (see comments I made in response Jytdog's survey response here in item (4) and comments made by Tsavage).
 * review articles that give an alternative view have been systematically excluded by those supporting the "consensus" statement without any valid argument for the exclusion, e.g. Domingo (2011). (see here.) (updated David Tornheim (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC))
 * User Tsavage makes the important observation here that although some of the sources do agree that that genetic engineering technology (GMO) is not inherently more risky than traditional breeding, one can not extend that statement to the "novel" construction (WP:SYN) that the actual food "currently on the market" resulting from the two different technologies is equally safe. This is a particularly odd inference/conclusion given that regulatory approval for new GMO foods in the U.S.A. is voluntary:  "FDA has set up a voluntary consultation process to engage with the developers of genetically engineered plants to help ensure the safety of food from these products."  (source: here). The same AMA policy statement (source 4) advocates shifting to mandatory testing (see also this article).  (added David Tornheim (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC))
 * In fact, the statement "food currently on the market" is not very meaningful and is not defined in the sources. I am not even convinced the statement comparing the safety of "currently marketed" GMO food to conventional is falsifiable (if it is not falsifiable then one cannot make an experiment to test and prove it scientifically according to respected Philosopher of Science Karl Popper).  See arguments regarding this from Tsavage here:
 * ":*The statement "currently marketed" GM food, whether paraphrased or quoted, requires a clear definition of what that comprises; as an unqualified, blanket statement, it is not common knowledge, varies by country (in part based on wide variation in regulations), and for practical purposes is unverifiable (there is no practical way of knowing if "all" food currently on the market meets any particular standard)." 07:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (added David Tornheim (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC))

Reasons previously given for problems of including the "consensus statement" as it is with the current sourcing :
 * undue weight to pro-GMO arguments
 * GMO Critics considerations to this statement have been omitted.
 * These articles and their arguments must be considered which challenge any claim of a scientific "consensus" on GMO safety:
 * This scientific review article from 2015 challenges the claim of a scientific "consensus".
 * Food & Water Watch Article :  "The so-called scientific 'consensus': Why the debate on GMO safety is not over"
 * GM Watch publishing excerpts from above above F&WW article immediately above.
 * Beyond GMO article: "Who says GMOs are safe? (and who says they’re not)"
 * ENSSER article : "Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety" (mentioned by many above.)
 * (this bullet point added David Tornheim (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC))
 * The quotes have been cherry picked and manufactured to draw this conclusion without consideration to all of the other material in the articles, studies and reviews that temper such a bold statement.
 * The synthesis of this statement from numerous sources that do not even use the word "consensus" is little more than WP: OR.
 * Inconsistent use of MEDRS.
 * If MEDRS is being used the AAAS and AMA sources are clearly not viable (they are not studies or peer reviews, but political statements by the respective boards) and many of the sources are "too old". I'm not convinced MEDRS is the right standard for this.  This is not a drug and is not medical advice.  Furthermore, this has to do with things like Toxicology.
 * As TFD correctly points out:
 * 'on source 3 Pamela Ronald's article is not a review article on GMO safety but on "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security." She provides two sources for her statement on safety: the U.S. (2002) and EU (2004/2008/2010) governments. She is a geneticist. Domingo otoh is a toxicologist who reviewed studies on GMO safety. MEDRS says, "Ideal sources for biomedical content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews...written by experts in the relevant field."' TFD 18:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC) diff (this quoted added: David Tornheim (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC))
 * If MEDRS is not being used, then alternative sources from GMO critics that directly challenge the statement have not been included.
 * Many of the sources are not from the right field of expertise, which I believe should be Food Safety, and Toxicology, in particular. I believe many of the sources are from Pro-GMO sources that are trying to benefit from advances in technology from the "bio" research end, not from the safety or Toxicology and human safety end--the AAAS for example.  They are clearly going to be biased in, "let's try it, let's look at the benefits, what's the danger?" frame of mind.  The interpretation of the articles reflects this same kind of thinking.
 * The fact that many RS--including those cited--say that GMO products are not sufficiently tested (or cannot be tested because of problems of making human guinea pigs) should be included in the paragraph for balance, and that regulations are not even close to uniform, as the U.S. has very few regulations on GMO safety compared to the E.U. for example, and plenty of RS says this.
 * I have commented on many of the problems discussed here, including the problems with balance and provided RS challenging this statement in the past on the GMO controversies page. I need to dig up those discussions and bring in the RS.  Some of the RS I believe is on this talk page.  I regret I do not have more time for a more complete post
 * -David Tornheim (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC) (revised David Tornheim (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC))
 * Unfortunately, David, I think your response isn't applying some core policies correctly. WP:NPOV doesn't say that if Position X is presented, then Position Anti-X has to be presented too.  It says that we emphasize arguments in proportion to what's found in reliable sources.  As has already been pointed out (did you miss those arguments?) position statements from weighty authoritative bodies like the AAAS citing the WHO are in a completely different ballpark than statements from activism groups like Greenpeace and ENSSR. Per WP:GEVAL, which is policy, we can't give the two categories of sources equal validity. The AAAS statement says "The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Acad- emy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."  This is reasonably summarized as "broad consensus". And as we're discussing a statement about the health effects of food, absolutely WP:MEDRS is the correct guideline, hard to see how it wouldn't be.   00:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Zad, Tsavage points out) that "The AAAS document, "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods," is a position piece opposing mandatory labeling legislation in the US."   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Some points:
 * Since you assert that WP:MEDRS is the proper standard, then why are you citing the AAAS statement as RS, which does not qualify under WP:MEDRS?
 * In the AAAS statement cites the Royal Society of Medicine. As this excellent Issue Brief from Food and Water Watch points out, the British Royal Society of Medicine does not support the statement:
 * For example, the GMO-consensus campaign points to the Royal Society of Medicine and the Royal Society of London as part of the scientific “consensus,” based on quotes from individuals who are not formal representatives of these groups.[source] Neither organization has an official policy on GMO safety.  Specifically, the GMO-consensus campaign asserts that the Royal Society of Medicine supports the “consensus” based on a single, cherry-picked quote from a review article [here] that happened to be published in a journal run by the Society, but which does not reflect the official thinking or position of the organization. This article no more represents the views of the Royal Society of Medicine than does the response letter [here] that the journal published, which criticized the article for factual inaccuracy and a lack of supporting data.
 * This example alone shows that the AAAS statement can not be trusted for accuracy.
 * 3.   wrote "I think your response isn't applying some core policies correctly.  WP:NPOV doesn't say that if Position X is presented, then Position Anti-X has to be presented too."  I never claimed that.  WP:WEIGHT states:
 * Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
 * As noted above, the WHO and FAO sources have been cherry-picked to synthesize the scientific "consensus" statement, while ignoring PROMINENT VIEWS such as:  The WHO says: "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. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.'" The FAO says (after the paragraph already quoted): "'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. ...'"
 * Quotes borrowed from.
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - it has reliable enough references, I'm happy with the way it's written. Echo most things above, I see no point repeating everyone else KieranTribe (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the sources given support the text. One of the objections above is that there are too many sources, but if sources were removed, anti-GMO editors would then say that there isn't enough consensus, which is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation". By including all the sources, it's clear that the consensus exists among scientists. As has been pointed out above, the existence of dissenting opinions does not invalidate the consensus; in fact, consensus implies some disagreement. This is as true for scientists as it is for Wikipedia. Ca2james (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons already spelled out in detail here. A press release from the American Association for the Advancement of Science—with exactly two footnotes!—does not begin to fulfill the requirements for a reliable source in this case. Users who affirm the quality of these sources while elsewhere claiming to uphold "MEDRS" should be ashamed of themselves. The quantity of sources here presented only serves to underscore their poor quality.


 * Actual peer-reviewed review articles, such as Domingo & Bordonoba ("A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants", Environment International, 2011), suggests that not only is there not a consensus, there is actually great dissension:


 * "In spite of this, the number of studies speciﬁcally focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the ﬁrst time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientiﬁc journals by those companies (Domingo, 2007)."


 * The concept of a "scientific consensus" on genetic engineering is a fiction advanced by biotechnology companies. Numerous (peer-reviewed) articles linked on the page above attest to this. For example, Don Lotter writes in the International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food ("The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science", 2009)


 * "A major conflict is imminent in science. On the one side are scientists, universities and corporations who have invested nearly 25 years and tens of billions of dollars in the genetic engineering of organisms (transgenics), mostly bacteria and plants, for food, pharmaceutical, and industrial uses. On the other side is a flood of evidence that food plant transgenics – not bacterial or pharmaceutical plant transgenics – is fatally flawed and has been resting on a theoretical foundation that has crumbled away as the science of genetics reinvents itself. Adding to this side is a worldwide grass-roots movement opposed to genetically engineered foods."


 * To continue unequivocally promoting the (comparative) safety of genetically engineered food on Wikipedia, is in my opinion not only incorrect, but also unethical, because in doing so we egregiously misinform our reading public on the topic of human health. shalom, groupuscule (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the opposition has set forth a convincing argument. I also agree with the reasons  so eloquently pointed out above. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
This article is not called 'Currently marketed GMO food', and the use of that or a similar qualifier in the lede reads as intentional obfuscation / misleading framing. Using similar construction makes possible absurd statements of fact such as 'All Agent Orange currently on the market poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.'Dialectric (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This leads to a broad point that has gone largely undiscussed, what is "currently"? "Currently marketed GM food" requires:
 * 1) a definition or clarification, to avoid reader confusion between GM crops and foods containing GM ingredients, as the (probably correct) perception may be that new GMO-containing food products come out all the time;
 * 2) some way to reference which crops/foods these are, "currently," as in, right now; while I am under the impression that it is a relatively short food crop list (around a dozen items per Genetically modified crops), and most GM food is food that contains ingredients from three or four GM commodity crops, I have also read that there are GM carrots, lettuce, strawberries and so forth - there is lots of confusing information that doesn't distinguish between research and trial products, and what is on the market, as well as straight misinformation, for example, one article mislabeled the novel pluot plum-apricot cross as GM, and then there are new crops like GM apples and rice, both "approved for 2015-2016."
 * A "currently" parallel from a reader perspective might be film articles listing current box office totals, or sports articles listing current statistics, which tend to be continually, and not necessarily uniformly, updated as the numbers change. A blanket statement about an unclearly defined set tends to further confuse an already confusing (public) issue. --Tsavage (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * many of the sources discuss the specificity of the claim about safety - that safety has to be assessed on a case by case basis, and is, and that the regulatory process is good enough to assess the relative safety. so yes, until some new science comes out that shows that the GM modification process actually incurs some risk that current regulatory processes do not address, the already-cleared or approved foods are safe enough. (this is one of the reasons that anti-GMO folks made a big deal about the (ludicrous) "electron microscope organisms" touted by Huber... it was supposedly some previously unknown mechanism of toxicity. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is the WP:RS for this claim that safety is assessed on a "case by case" basis? WP:RS indicate otherwise:  "FDA has set up a voluntary consultation process to engage with the developers of genetically engineered plants to help ensure the safety of food from these products." (source:here). The AMA policy statement (source 4) advocates shifting from voluntary to mandatory case-by-case testing as is done in the E.U.  (see also  this article).  This article you provided me with here explains how regulation of GMO's in the U.S. is now more lax than in the E.U. David Tornheim (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The defense of this one phrase, "broad scientific consensus," is getting more convoluted as we go. You say "many of the sources discuss the specificity of the claim about safety" which to me says you expect readers to sift through sources to assemble material to support the statement, instead of looking for pretty near identical consensus wording in the source. Or do the 18 or so citations variously support differnt parts of the entire sentence, some support the consensus, others the eating of, the no greater risk than conventional breeding, and so forth? I'm a simple reader, precisely how am I supposed to verify that impressive consensus statement? You earlier suggested that readers should start with the first source and read until they're satisfied. But they also need to locate discussions of specificity of the claim, where it is explained that the current regulatory framework (where, in the US? Europe? China? globally? is that determined?) is sufficient that any GM food that makes it to market is automatically safe, until, if and when, the science changes and problems are discovered. Really? And you haven't replied to my point 1, making the distinction between new GM crops and new food products containing GM ingredients - that's not splitting hairs, it's normal editorial consideration when we're writing a non-technical article for a general audience. --Tsavage (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * how are you supposed to verify? read them.  the first one should do.  if that doesn't satisfy you, read on. Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Tsavage, you are describing WP:OR, which states Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The UN's International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development 2009 Global Report, which is used as a source in this article, says, "There are a limited number of properly designed and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health (Domingo, 2000; Pryme and Lembcke, 2003). Among the studies that have been published, some have provided evidence for potential undesirable effects (Pryme and Lembcke, 2003; Pusztai et al., 2003). Taken together, these observations create concern about the adequacy of testing methodologies for commercial GM plants fueling public skepticism and the possibility of lawsuits." (p. 394) Can anyone explain why its conclusions differ from those presented above? TFD (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You realize these are really too old under WP:MEDRS? If this is used as a reference it should perhaps be replaced. Principal sources from 2000 and 2003 are surely too old, and there must have been a wealth of studies since. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are claiming that a report from 2009 is "too" old, then do you agree that all of the sources with dates of 2009 listed above to support the "scientific consensus" should be stricken?  If you are using WP:MEDRS to measure the quality of the statement, do you agree that the AAAS and AMA statements should be removed as potential sources, because these are not studies but political positions taken by their respective Board of Directors?  If not, do you agree that other reliable sources that are not peer reviewed studies (or reviews) that are from entities such as Food & Water Watch, Greenpeace, ENSSR} and similar organizations who are not GMO cheerleaders should have some say on this or any other statement about GMO's?  Or are only those who support and defend GMO's allowed a voice in the reporting of GMO's?  [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim] (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If 2009 is the cut-off, then there should not be sources presented before then. And you still need to explain why what the UN said six years ago is no longer valid.  For example, a source should say, "until six years ago, the science on GMO was unsettled, but scientific consensus was reached in 2010."  The UN source is so authoritative, that you need a source that specifically addresses why it is wrong.  TFD (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't you see the problem with "There are a limited number of properly designed and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health (Domingo, 2000; Pryme and Lembcke, 2003)"? Concentrate on the meaning of the word "are"! Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * , responding to you above and to your follow up on my Talk page. Here is the picture as far as I understand it from the literature.
 * there is the scientific consensus which is that currently marketed GM food is as safe as conventional food and sees no credible mechanism how currently marketed GM food even could be harmful. Standing on that spot, are most scientists, pretty much every regulatory agency, most farmers (who have adopted the technology), and the companies that make and sell the products.  In this perspective, there is a keen awareness that it would be very possible to make GM food that could be harmful, but we are reasonably aware of the risks and the tests we have are good enough to weed out products that would be harmful (although better analytical tools are always wanted and welcome)
 * Way over yonder you have some scientists, a huge and vocal online community, some advocacy organizations, and some members of the organics industry, that make wildly exaggerated claims about dangers of GM food, promote crazy mechanisms for toxicity (like "electron microscope organisms" somehow created by genetic modification process) and who almost never make a distinction between currently marketed GM food and any possible GM food product (e.g. who point up the dangers of allergens being introduced into the food supply - but that is a risk that is known and managed in the RW product development process and currently marketed GM foods do not appear to have any special allergenicity)
 * You have a very few credible scientists - like Domingo - who take the view that while currently marketed GM food is ~probably~ OK, there are questions that need answering and we probably went too fast in disseminating the technology. There is a paragraph on his work in the GM controversies article (just search for "Domingo")
 * In WP terminology, in my view, the first position is the mainstream that we present in WP's voice, the 2nd is FRINGE pseudoscience (sometimes just bad science), and the 3rd is, I think, a "significant minority voice". That is my own analysis.   I made a proposal a while back on the Talk page of the GM Food controversies to discuss working this into the article but it didn't get much traction.
 * With regard to the age of sources... GM food has been on the market now almost twenty years. There is no real debate in the mainstream scientific community about the technology or the relative safety of food, and there has been no good science done to raise any questions, since forever.   The analogy aspartame, not, say questions about the PPAR inhibition (e.g thiazolidinediones)  - see this pubmed search - plenty of recent reviews).   So the relative safety of GM food is not a question that gets raised a lot in the scientific literature and the sources about the consensus are indeed older.  Probably the most interesting scientific question out there, is "what would be the results of a credible, very long term feeding study?"  There is a group called The Grace Project funded by the EU that has been running a project to plan and execute such a study.  I hope they do run that.  Jytdog (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this RfC is, to a large extent, inappropriate because a good-faith attempt at resolving the dispute about the WHO citation has not yet occurred. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, "Requests for Comment generally require that at least an effort be made to discuss the matter in question before making the request." Comments like "I suggest you drop the stick" do not pass for attempts at productive discussion.GrayDuck156 (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC) These points might be slightly off-topic but I think might be useful for seeking a compromise. I have several concerns with the wording of the statement. First, the term "broad scientific consensus" seems unnecessarily ambiguous and subjective. The word "consensus" can mean anything from majority agreement to unanimity of opinion. Why not use a word that is not subject to multiple interpretations? The word "scientific" raises the question of whose opinion counts, which is a subjective determination. The word "broad" also has no precise, or even clear, meaning. Second, starting the sentence with the words "There is..." seems clumsy and obscures the subject of the sentence. GrayDuck156 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * as i mentioned above: 1) please comment on content, not contributor. 2) the discussion above got much broader than your issue with the WHO source. hence the RfC. I think you will find that the community upholds the consensus statement about the relative safety of eating GM food, but we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, thanks for replying. The most recent review cited in the UN report was Pryme and Lembcke, 2003.  I suppose what they said was accurate - few studies had been made, but since then the there have been lots of studies.  The EU report for example reviews studies from to the period 2001-2010.


 * One of the studies mentioned in the UN report was Domingo 2000. Domingo published a review study in 2011 in Environment International, which says there is a balance between reports claiming currently consumed GMO foods are safe and those saying they are not.  His report shows 119 cites in Google scholar.


 * Also, per MEDRS guidelines, some of the sources for the wording should be removed. For example, the Washington Post article does not meet MEDRS.


 * TFD (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * there are a few non-MEDRS sources in there, I agree. They are high-quality secondary sources that report on the fact of the scientific consensus, not on the content of that consensus. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to Domingo's 2011 review study. Why does it have less weight than a Washington Post article?  TFD (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * see above. if you read the reliable sources, domingo has a minority position. the washington post source simply reports on the consensus, as i mentioned above. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If (high quality) news media can evaluate and summarize scientific findings in this case, then presumably that should be so in most cases. Here, the single author of the Washington Post piece appears from her credits to be a food, science and health journalist with no scientific credentials, and the "consensus" she reports on is her own finding, using an "impartiality test" she has devised to determine which organizations seem to have taken sides and which seem neutral, by examining the ratio of risks to benefits each mentions - since explaining her method is central to her article and conclusion, I then have to determine if I agree with that method, and with the exclusions of presumably partisan organizations that she makes in determining consensus. It's all pretty confusing to me, and also illustrates the problem with too many cited sources: how is an editor, let alone a reader, expected to wade through all this - it would take hours? --Tsavage (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * so the edits today by the 66... IP are typical of the POV-pushers who come by the GMO articles and bomb it. That is why we have the huge pile of sources.  People feel so strongly about this. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there is zero justification for SYNTH - you still have not shown one strong source which makes the claim you are trying to make in WPs voice. You have added a string of sources in violation of OR/SYNTH, and conveniently an IP shows up that you can use as an example of the great stress "anti-GMO" advocates out you through. There is no one on WP who feels as strongly as you about GMOs, given your contribs, so save it. This RfC came only days into a fruitful conversation and was uncalled for - what it did was obfuscate the conversation about the OR/SYNTH problem completely.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   09:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, you are correct, I do have a point of view on this subject. But I have no doubt that you do too, and it is unfair to dismiss my criticism on the basis of my point of view. This article is about GM food, not "currently marketed GM food," and acknowledging that there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GM food is a highly relevant piece of information that needs to be in the introduction. Furthermore, the above referenced letter notes that studies concluding that GM foods are as safe as conventional foods are often performed by researchers connected to GM companies with an interest in marketing their product. Additionally, in reading their discussion under "There is no consensus on GM food safety," it is clear that their statement is regarding currently marketed GM food.
 * So although my initial complaint was about the failure of this Wikipedia article to note a lack of scientific consensus on the safety of all GM food (versus currently marketed GM food), I'd also now like to point out that I think the statement about consensus on currently marketed GM food is not only misleading, but incorrect.
 * 66.169.76.198 (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My perspective on this is not relevant. WP is all about what the reliable sources say.  WP has reported for several years now that there is a scientific consensus on the relative safety of eating GM food.   You also raise a question about scope.  The scope of this article is actual GM food, not theoretical GM food - its purpose is to inform readers about what they might actually encounter.   This issue has been discussed on this talk page as well.  it is a conversation we can have again, but please do read the discussions in the archives.   (There is however general discussion of the risks in the GM food controversies article) Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not think anyone would claim that all GMO food is safe, just the GMO food currently sold. Obviously there are toxic plants (mushrooms, poison berries, etc.) so possibly conventional food could be engineered to produce toxins.  TFD (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * _______________
 * In regards to your comment that this article is about actual GM food, Jytdog, that is precisely why I pointed out that the criticisms leveled in the published discussion "No scientific consensus on GM food safety" are referring to currently marketed GM food. There is no scientific consensus on the safety of currently marketed GM food.
 * The letter attests to this, and lays out a clear argument against such claims. The main point of criticism that I anticipate is "Why did these scientists choose to sign a letter rather than simply conduct further food safety research to prove their point?" I agree that research would certainly be the preferable option to a letter. The problem, however, largely has to do with patent law on GM seeds. In order to conduct a study on potential health impacts of GM food, researchers need to control all conditions related to how the selected crop to be studied was grown. This means they need to get the original seed. However, patent law largely restricts researchers from accessing this seed without first receiving permission from the company that produces it. Problems arising from this include allegations that the company selectively denies permission based on anticipated results, as well as researchers being required to sign contracts stating that they will submit their results to the biotech company for approval before publishing the results.
 * The problem this creates for independent research, a problem that has also been noted by the United Nations Environmental Programme, was brought to the attention of the EPA in 2009, when a group of 29 scientists stated that "as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the tech­nol­ogy." In response, the American Seed Trade Association agreed to offer blanket research agreements to all public universities. This agreement allows public university researchers to access GM seeds for studies on subjects such as agronomics, yield and pest management. It does not, however, open up research access for health-related studies. Instead, the biotech industry, which has a clear vested interest in the results of studies examining whether there are health risks associated with GMOs, retains the ability to limit who can study this issue, and how those studies are carried out. Regardless of whether our ongoing discussion concludes that there is scientific consensus or not, this narrative of restricted research is important and, in order for this article to avoid presenting a biased claim, this information should be added to the article.
 * Restricted research has had a clear impact on the total number of health-related studies on GM food. Jose L Domingo published several papers regarding this issue, all of which concluded that there is scant scientific literature on the human health risks of GM foods, let alone whether they are equivalent in risk to non-GM foods. His most recent study, published in 2011 in Environmental International, "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants," found that although there continue to be scant studies on the human health risks of GM foods, there is a balance between those that do and do not find risk. You say that Domingo has a minority position. I can think of a certain letter signed by at least 300 scientists who would disagree... What's more, his position does not discount the quantitative content of his claim. The very bulk of scientific literature on the subject-- the scientific literature that this article is presumably referring to when it cites a "scientific consensus"-- does not in fact demonstrate a scientific consensus. This problem is, of course, in addition to the fact that the citations on WP consensus claim either do not actually support this claim (AMA, WHO) or are poor objective sources (the AAAS Board of Directors letter, which was refuted by a group of scientists for unrelated reasons). A cursory glance at the National Academies study also did not support this claim. Feel free to let me know which page to check.
 * The United Nations Environment Programme also disagrees that Domingo's review should be discredited as a "minority position." In their International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, published in 2009, they cite his review when noting that there are a limited number of properly designed and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health related to GM food. They also note that, of the limited numbers of studies published, some have found adverse effects. If you consider yourself to have more authority on the relevancy of Domingo's work than the UN, I invite you to make this claim directly. And interestingly enough, the WHO was a co-partner on this publication..... That citation referencing the WHO FAQ needs to go.
 * I also checked out your citation of the American Medical Association's "Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health" (the link you provide does not work, by the way) and this source also does not support the claim that there is a scientific consensus on that GM food on the market is just as conventional food. Instead, they merely note how the claim of substantial equivalence is made. The FDA reviews a safety assessment created by the producer of that GM crop, in which the producer assesses whether the GM crop "possesses similar levels and variations of critical nutrients and toxicants as its conventional counterpart." The AMA then goes on to say that there is an ongoing effort to improve abilities to detect toxicants and other unintended effects. There are important questions to ask here, including which toxicants are studied, and whether the adverse health effects reported in scientific literature, if true, are related to toxicants or some other factor. And as the ongoing issue with chemical safety in the U.S. demonstrates, there is a significant potential for bias when the producer of a product is the same group doing the safety review. It is irresponsible and, as with the WHO FAQ citation, blatantly false to hold up this source as evidence of scientific consensus.
 * The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics also states that there is no consensus on whether GM food has negative health effects, and cites the need for further study of this issue.
 * All of this further presses the point that it is inaccurate for this Wikipedia article to say that there is a consensus on the issue. As far as I can tell, I am citing peer-reviewed studies and major sources of public policy which explicitly say there is no consensus. This article, on the other hand, misinterprets sources that more often than not do not claim consensus, or in some cases are questionably subjective (such as the AAAS Board of Directors letter). 66.169.76.198 (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your assessment of Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health is at odds with the contents of that document. I suggest you strike it and any other source misreprestations you've made here. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll address your point in a moment, but I'd like to first note that the bulk of my argument remains unaddressed. 1) There is limited research on the health effects of GM food due to patent law; this lack of study is directly noted by credible sources such as the UN Environment Programme and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, so it doesn't make sense to consider these sources less credible than the current synthesis of citations used to claim that there is a consensus on the issue of currently marketed GM food, especially considering that many of these current sources do not make this direct claim 2) Given this lack of studies, it would be irresponsible to claim there is a consensus on the issue; since when does ignorance equate to scientific consensus?
 * Regarding the "Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health," you need to be more specific about what point you think I've misrepresented. At no point in the document does it say that there is a consensus on whether GM foods are as safe for consumption as convention foods. What they say is "FDA’s science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The Council supports this science-based approach, and believes that thorough pre-market safety assessment and the FDA’s requirement that any material difference between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts be disclosed in labeling, are effective in ensuring the safety of bioengineered food. To better characterize the potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that permarket safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement."
 * This is a paper arguing that in order for the FDA to require labeling of GM food, they need to establish that a difference exists between GM and non-GM foods. Evidence examining whether such a difference exists relies on premarket safety assessments, which the FDA does not currently require. So as I said, this paper is an examination of how the FDA evaluates GM food, and is not an assessment of whether there is scientific consensus on the safety of GM food compared to convention food. If anything, this paper serves to refute the existence of consensus, because it notes limits to current GM food assessments, such as the use of voluntary premarket self-testing. Considering that a biotech company can release their product on the market without any review for potential health impacts and, as per the patent issue I mentioned earlier, block potentially negative research on their product, the landscape of research on GM food has been very limited-- hence organizations such as the UN and AND noting the need for more research on the issue. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The issues you bring up aren't issues at all. There is, generally speaking, a lack of research on biological topics. This lack of research is usually the product of having to prioritize limited resources. With the case of GMO studies, the petition by the scientists was done with frankly no research by the scientists at all, and they have later admitted not understanding the actual legality of researching patented crops. To be brief it isn't an issue, Monsanto for instance has an open agreement that allows any researchers at a US university to research any of their products, and in general companies will normally provide researchers with any materials they need to study their products free of charge. You may notice your source on the lack of studies on GMOs doesn't bring up patents. It also doesn't bring up the fact that GMO research in Europe has been primarily hindered by environmentalists who have been destroying research crops and threatening scientists for over a decade. This also extends to the US when Michigan State had its biotech lab burned down because they were studying GMOs.
 * To address your other statements; we haven't performed toxicological studies on most conventional food either. There are in fact many things we do not know about conventional foods or their safety. The statement being argued is whether GMOs are comparable conventional food with regards to human health, and not whether GMOs are safe to eat. We don't know about the general safety of food, but epidemiological data and toxicological studies done thus far haven't been able to discern differences between GMOs and their conventional counterparts.TypingAway (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, their testing methods leave a lot to be desired. "Current testing methods being used in bio-tech companies appear to be inadequate. For instance, only chemical analysis of some nutrients are reported and generally consider the GM crops equal to its conventional crops when no major differences are detected between the compound compositions in both products." And, it should be known that "At the present there is no peer-reviewed publication on clinical studies of GMF effects on human health." Aren't most of the studies performed thus far done by the biotech companies?


 * Reuters prints: "According to the petition, some scientists working for the federal government are finding their research restricted or censored when it conflicts with agribusiness industry interests" and they are asking for protection. The USDA's Tom Vilsack and the FDA's Michael Taylor (both hold top positions) have worked for Monsanto, Taylor, in charge of food safety, as VP and chief lobbyist.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ______________


 * Jytdog, I do not see why I have to read through 20 sources - can you please id the most reliable source, saying where it says what, and we can compare it with the review study. Also, review studies are the most reliable sources per medrs.  Ideally you should present a review study.  TFD (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * you don't need to . no one "needs" to.   They are roughly in order of importance. Sources 3 and 5 should probably be switched.  but you one can stop reading sources as soon as you  they are satisifed, and if you they reach the end and are still not satisfied, you they are likely a True Believer and there is nothing to be done for such a person anyway.  At what point do you think the sourcing is sufficient?  Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC) (note, fixed formatting of all italics.. was a typo Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)) (replace "you" to make it clear that this wasn't meant to be personal.  Left "you" in last question, b/c that was a real question to TfD.  my apologies for the sloppy writing and for the offense given.Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC))


 * The RfC is not about whether GMOs are safe, but whether sources support the statement that broad scientific consensus exists in RS. There is no reason to argue about whether WP:SYNTH is suddenly acceptable: it isn't.


 * A review from January 2015 concludes that there is no consensus on whether GMOs are safe OR dangerous - the consensus is that there is much to know, and that proper studies have not been conducted.


 * Hilbeck et al. Environmental Sciences Europe (2015) No scientific consensus on GMO safety
 * ''For decades, the safety of GMOs has been a hotly controversial topic that has been much debated around the world. Published results are contradictory, in part due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of available procedures, and differences in the analysis and interpretation of data. Such a lack of consensus on safety is also evidenced by the agreement of policymakers from over 160 countries - in the UN's Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius - to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for ‘safe’. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests. The joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature
 * ...the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist outside of the above depicted internal circle of stakeholders. The health, environment, and agriculture authorities of most nations recognize publicly that no blanket statement about the safety of all GMOs is possible and that they must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, the claim that it does exist - which continues to be pushed in the above listed circles - is misleading and misrepresents or outright ignores the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of scientific opinions among scientists on this issue.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, to better participate in this discussion, you too should comment on the content, rather than the contributor. I would also like to point out that, in addition to the cited WHO page explicitly not supporting the claim that there is consensus, the statement from the AAAS Board of Directors is also problematic. This was not a review of the scientific literature or an official policy; this was a statement made by a small group of people. And, though not addressing whether or not there is consensus on the issue, a group of scientists issued a letter in disagreement with the AAAS Board, which further calls in to question the validity of using the AAAS Board of Directors statement as a source for the claim that there is consensus. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, that is really offensive. I am not a "true believer."  I think however we should follow reliable sources policy and MEDRS guidelines, which means we should report what review studies say rather than newspaper articles.  Can you please identify the source that I am supposed to accept instead of the review study and mention a page no. so I do not have to read through dozens of pages.
 * In the aspartame articles, you and I always agree on the types of sources that should be used - why is this article different?
 * BTW I have no opinion on whether GMO foods are safe or what the scientific consensus is. But I would like to discuss the sources.
 * TFD (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry about that TfD, the "you" was meant to be "a reader", not personal to you. fixed that. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * TFD, I provided a more extensive breakdown of the problems with the current citations used by Jytdog above, as well as references to sources and reviews which conclude that there is no scientific consensus on this issue. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop personalizing this. The content under discussion was authored by many people, not just me.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies. It was, at times, uncalled for. Please address my criticisms. Thanks. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the demo, Jytdog, that seems like a fair revision. That was not the criticism I was referring to, however. Perhaps I placed it in a confusing way for this discussion. It ends directly above the comment from TFD, where you just edited your response. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Some notes about the "No scientific consensus on GMO safety" paper: Just the fact that there scientists claiming there is no consensus, doesn't mean there isn't a consensus. There are a number of scientists that oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, but this doesn't mean that there isn't a broad consensus that humans are contributing to climate change. The paper seems to be more an opinion piece by a group of scientists (including notable anti-gm activists like Vandana Shiva and Michael Hansen) than anything resembling a review. (See a discussion about the paper here for more info). The paper is also published in the same journal that republished the famous and widely criticised Séralini study (which the paper also cites in it's defence), that was retracted for not living up to scientific standards (see Séralini affair). This would at the very least suggest that there is some bias involved here. The organisation also seems to be running a campaign where anyone with a relevant academic degree can sign up to their "no scientific consensus" list. Øln (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not an accurate characterization to compare the lack of consensus on climate change to the lack of consensus on GM food. Scientists refuting consensus on climate change were extremely well-funded. Scientists desiring to study potential health impacts of GM food, however, are not even able to access the basic materials needed to conduct their study. I mentioned this in a comment above, as a way to explain why these scientists published a letter rather than a series of studies. This restriction on research is important and needs to be taken into account when considering whether there is a consensus. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if you take that paper out of the equation. The broad scientific consensus claim appears to be based on the The statement of the AAAS Board. But its problematic in a way that is fundamentally opposed to one of the 5 pillars. The AAAS Board statement only commented on a review that covered a large number of studies. But never said that there was broad consensus, or anything like that. The review may imply that, and so the AAAS Board statement may imply it. But it is not specifically stated. Since it is not stated it appears to be an analysis of what the statement says or a synthesis of it and the remaining sources. Thats OR, and as one of the 5 pillars OR is non negotiable. The best this RFC can do is come up with a local consensus that cant stand opposing one of the pillars. AlbinoFerret  20:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Source and location was provided, strike comment.  AlbinoFerret  01:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Øln, certainly showing that a number of scientists say there is no consensus does not mean there is no consensus. And note that in climate change the scientists who say there is no consensus are writing outside academic publications and no academically published articles question global warming.  But how do we know there is a consensus?  Because review studies tell us that.  The authors of these studies have examined all the literature and come to that conclusion.  But in this case, that has not been presented, rather a review study says that no consensus exists.  That does not mean necessarily that the review study is accurate, but we need equal or better sources to challenge it.  TFD (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The authors of what studies? I have seen no claim beyond the AAAS letter that there is a consensus. The only review to have been conducted on all the literature was done by Domingo. The claim that he's a minor source is perplexing. Wouldn't the purpose of rejecting a minor source be because their results are not possible to corroborate? Yet you can go to the same two portals that Domingo used, and check on his results for yourself. We might not feel like doing that, but it does make his results more easily verifiable. Furthermore, the UN cites him in their report, among others, in claiming that there is limited research. And the UN, as well as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, note that there is no consensus on the issue.
 * There are major sources claiming that there is no consensus. Meanwhile, the citations for the claim that there is a consensus often do not actually say this. If there is a reputable literature review claiming that there is a consensus, I'm eager to see it, particularly if it's anywhere near as robust as the literature review carried out by Domingo. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You misread me, I was saying there are studies showing that there is consensus on climate change. Another editor had tried to draw a connection between climate change science and GMO safety.  TFD (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the article should use a more precise phrase than "conventional food." I think changing that phrase to "foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant breeding [or "hybridization," or something like that] techniques" would be less ambiguous. GrayDuck156 (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC) The burden of proof is on those who believe the statement is supported by the citations, not on those who do not not. Some of the supporters of the statement here seem to think that the statement should stay unless someone proves that GMO food is unsafe. We are discussing a very sweeping, definitive statement that GMO food is of limited risk, not one that says the opposite. GrayDuck156 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think clear consensus has been reached that the sources do not support the content. While most editors responded in the affirmative (assuming their Wikipedia accounts represent separate people--something that rarely can be assumed on the internet with any confidence), "[c]onsensus on Wikipedia…[is not] the result of a vote." (WP:CON) Instead, "[c]onsensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." When Wikipedia policy is applied to the arguments given in this debate, the arguments for the negative position are demonstrably superior.

For example, WP:TALKDONTREVERT states the following: " The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever." However, all but about five of the editors voting in the affirmative failed to provide any substantive arguments of any kind in support of their position. They never even mentioned any of the content of any of the eighteen sources. For example, the entirety of one editor's input was the following sentence: "per Roches following advice given by Roches." Does that sound like a compelling argument that all eighteen sources fully support every word of the opening assertion? These "votes" cannot reasonably be given any consideration when deciding whether the sentence in the article should be removed or substantively modified. The arguments for the negative position, conversely, were often very substantive and addressed the specific content of the sources and the wording of the article's content.

Moreover, according to WP:V, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable" and WP:OR states that "…all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." But many of the editors who responded in the affirmative undermined their response by making clear that they agreed with the assertion in the article for reasons other than the suitability of the citations for supporting that content. For example, the entirety of one response to the survey was as follows: "This is, in my opinion, the scientific consensus." The need of these editors to use alternative bases for supporting the content argues that the listed citations are not very compelling.

Another important Wikipedia policy is given in WP:RS/AC: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. ...[a]ny statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." However, none of the affirmative editors were able to identify any statement in any of the listed sources that was equivalent to the opening sentence. The supporters of the negative position, conversely, were able to point to parts of the sentence that were supported by few--or none--of the sources. For example, we noted that the phrase "conventional food" is used in few or none of the sources and is not defined in either the article or in any of the sources. The word "consensus," or an equivalent term, is also used in very few of the sources and is a weasel word (when used in mainspace).

According to WP:RELIABLE, "[a]rticles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, the source most frequently relied upon by the affirmative side was an opinion piece by an advocacy organization. The negative side also pointed to other reliability weaknesses in many of the sources.

Another big weakness of the arguments in favor of the affirmative position is that that few of them bothered to address the many arguments for the negative position. According to WP:CON: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

The weakness of the arguments by many of those answering in the affirmative was testified to by their accusations that those of us on the other side of the debate were acting in bad faith. For example, one pro editor said: "Reading some of the comments on this page you might have some sense of the fierceness of anti-GMO advocates." According to WP:GOODFAITH, editors are to assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If those editors had good arguments, I would suggest that they probably would have spent their time presenting them rather than violating an important Wikipedia policy. Note that those of us on the other side have not responded in kind, even though we could have done so very easily.

I am not sure why so many editors answered in the affirmative, but one possible explanation is that Wikipedia editors are in the habit of giving advice to other editors on relatively unimportant matters. The sentence at issue is potentially crucial because readers can use it as medical advice. According to WP:IRS: "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim. "

So consensus, as defined by Wikipedia policies, has not been reached. If anyone disagrees--which seems likely--, I would suggest that we move the matter to dispute resolution. GrayDuck156 (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No doubt about it, proof has been provided after digging deeper into the sources - they do not support the extraordinary claim.. Most of the iVotes/arguments in support of the statement used the AAAS source as validation, and have ignored the revelation that this source is pure advocacy to support an anti-GMO labeling program, and is not a scientific statement at all.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have any suggestions for transitioning back into dispute resolution? I do not expect that this discussion will chang in any material way. I posted to the dispute resolution noticeboard, but it was set aside for this RfC. It was arguably not quite on point. GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not the one to ask (noticeboards aren't my strong suit). Perhaps has an idea about the correct procedure.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

quotes from all sources
just want to note here for ease of reference: Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) AAS source says "Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”"   that is just about every major scientific or medical organization on the planet.  That is pretty much the definition of "broad scientific consensus>"
 * 2) 2 decade of research, is already quoted in the ref, but again "=The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." (p. 16)"
 * 3) 3 pamela ronald review article: "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." (bolded for those calling WP:SYN above)
 * 4) 4 AMA source, already quoted in the ref. This is provided to give a specific example of the organizations named by the AAAS.  "Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.""   Further says "Despite strong consumer interest in mandatory labeling of bioengineered foods, the FDA’s science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The Council supports this science-based approach, and believes that thorough pre-market safety assessment and the FDA’s requirement that any material difference between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts be disclosed in labeling, are effective in ensuring the safety of bioengineered food. "
 * 5) Sci Am:  longer quote: "Williams (David Williams, a cellular biologist who specializes in vision) concedes that he is among a tiny minority of biologists raising sharp questions about the safety of GM crops'....Whether Williams is right or wrong, one thing is undeniable: despite overwhelming evidence that GM crops are safe to eat, the debate over their use continues to rage..."
 * 6) WHO: This source is one of those mentioned in AAAS source, provided to give another specific example.  "While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are the potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.....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.  ... WHO will keep paying due attention to the safety of GM foods from the view of public health protection, in close collaboration with FAO and other international bodies." I note, that the WHO has raised no alarms over currently marketed food.   This is a
 * 7) FAO  already quoted above. "Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU)."
 * This citation is already being extensively discussed elsewhere on the Talk page, so I'm assuming you have this here for reference rather than as a point of discussion. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 8a - Nature editorial. "GM food has an uncanny ability to spook consumers. It does not matter that many of us have been consuming GM cornflakes, sweet corn, starches and sugars in processed food for over a decade. It does not matter that no adverse health effects have been recorded from eating them. Nor does it matter that august agencies, such as the World Health Organization, the US National Academy of Sciences, the European Commission or the American Medical Association, have come out with ringing endorsements of their safety."
 * Where are these ringing endorsements? Can you provide the first-hand sources?66.169.76.198 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

and they say: (care of google translate" " GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary authorization, must, on the basis of current knowledge, it is safe to use human and animal food. • It should therefore abandoned the Manichaean attitude "pro" or "anti" GMO intended in together in favor of a rational consensus because informed about the process and products arising. These conclusions are in line with what has already been expressed by the most prestigious organizations national and international scientific. The European Commissioner for Research, Philippe Busquin, EU at the end of the study lasted 15 years (1985-2000), and the involved 400 public research centers for a total of 70 million euro, has come to same conclusions stating that "research shows that plants genetically modified and the products developed and marketed up to now, according to the usual procedures risk assessment showed no risk to human health or the environment. Indeed, the use of a more precise technology and the most accurate assessments during the Regulatory probably make these plants and products even safer for the conventional " note that this even a stronger statement than the one we use'''
 * 8b German academies "In principle, no absolute guarantee can ever be offered for the safety of any food, whether produced conventionally or from GM plants. It is common knowledge that conventionally produced food can be the cause of allergies for predisposed persons; nuts (and particularly peanuts), strawberries, shellfish and wheat are all familiar examples. Foods of plant origin often contain toxic or carcinogenic substances; nature has provided plants with a large arsenal of defensive substances as protection against damage from feeding insects or from bacterial and fungal infections. Moreover, plant products may be contaminated by fungal toxins, a number of which are strongly carcinogenic; Fusaria toxins, which often pollute wheat and maize (even when grown “organically”), are examples. It has been estimated that in the industrial countries most of carcinogenic substances ingested derive from “natural” plant food.  Since absolute safety is never possible, the basis for approving GM food products is the failure – after extensive prescribed testing – to find any adverse indicators. Such tests show that these foods are at least as safe and nutritious as the corresponding products from conventionally produced crops. (bolding from original)
 * 8c english Summary of French academies report:  "The risks associated with transgenic plants (herbicide tolerance, resistance to predators and diseases, sterility, antibiotic resistance, allergenic properties) are currently under analysis.  This analysis shows that all criticisms against GMOs can be set aside based for the most part on strictly scientific criteria."
 * 8d Italian academies - note that they call this a "consensus" document and that they note that they consulted with:
 * Food and Agriculture Organization - FAO
 * World Health Organization - WHO
 * The Royal Society of London
 * U.S. National Academy of Sciences
 * The Royal Society of Canada
 * Accademia Nazionale delle Scienze e Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
 * Brazilian Academy of Sciences
 * Chinese Academy of Sciences
 * Indian National Science Academy
 * Mexican Academy of Sciences
 * Third World Academy of Sciences
 * Australian Academy of Science
 * Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
 * Consiglio Scientifico per le Biotecnologie in Agricoltura – Regione Lombardia
 * 8e washington post: "The organizations I found that pass, though, form a compelling coalition. The National Academies, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the Royal Society and the European Commission are all on the same side. Although it’s impossible to prove anything absolutely safe, and all of those groups warn that vigilance on GMOs and health is vital, they all agree that there’s no evidence that it’s dangerous to eat genetically modified foods. Even the Center for Science in the Public Interest is on board, and it has never been accused of being sanguine about food risks. I’m not the first journalist to notice the consensus. Science-oriented publications including Nature and Scientific American have taken a hard look at safety and also concluded there’s no evidence that GMOs are bad for us. Nathanael Johnson, who’s doing yeoman’s fact-finding work at Grist.org, concurs."
 * 8f: UC Davis ag extension: "While genetic engineering of foods continues to generate concern and controversy for some consumers, evidence to date has not indicated that any foods developed for human consumption using genetic engineering techniques pose risks greater than foods produced using traditional methods. "
 * 8g Trends in Biotechnology (this is about golden rice) "As the journal Nature editorialized in 1992, a broad scientific consensus holds that ‘the same physical and biological laws govern the response of organisms modified by modern molecular and cellular methods and those produced by classical methods. ... [Therefore] no conceptual distinction exists between genetic modification of plants and microorganisms by classical methods or by molecular techniques that modify DNA and transfer genes.... In contrast to plants modified with recombinant DNA technology, those constructed with less precise techniques, such as hybridization or mutagenesis, generally are subject to no government scrutiny or requirements (or opposition from activists) at all.... However, these constructions are less precisely crafted, less well characterized and less predictable than recombinant DNA constructions. Thus, we have a situation in which for more than two decades the degree of regulatory scrutiny (and therefore, the time and expense required for the development of new varieties) has been inversely proportional to the perceived degree of risk. This is absurd.  Regulators and activists are not the only villains of the piece. The media – and even scientific journals (see Ref. [4]) – have been undiscriminating and overly tolerant of the misrepresentations and distortions of anti-biotechnology activists..."
 * 8h Li, Quan; McCluskey, Jill; Wahl, Thomas (2004). "Effects of information on consumers' willingness to pay for GM-corn-fed beef". Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 2 (2): 1–16. doi:10.2202/1542-0485.1058
 * 8i International Council for Science "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 counterparts and suitable for human consumption. This view is shared by several intergovernmental agencies, including the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission on food safety, which has 162 member countries, the European Commission (EC), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Further, there is no evidence of any ill effects from the consumption of foods containing genetically modified ingredients. Since GM crops were first cultivated commercially in 1995, many millions of meals have been made with GM ingredients and consumed by people in several countries, with no demonstrated adverse effects."
 * 9 national academies - also emphasizing all the testing that is done: "In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic engineering techniques used in food production. This may be because developers of bioengineered organisms perform extensive compositional analyses to determine that each phenotype is desirable and to ensure that unintended changes have not occurred in key components of food."
 * 10 Key, in Journal of Royal Society of Med: "GM crops are tightly regulated by several government bodies. The European Food Safety Authority and each individual member state have detailed the requirements for a full risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed.34 In the USA, the Food and Drug Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are all involved in the regulatory process for GM crop approval.35 Consequently, GM plants undergo extensive safety testing prior to commercialization (for an example see http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/KeyTopics/efsa_locale-1178620753812_GMO.htm). Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA. There is little documented evidence that GM crops are potentially toxic."


 * there you go. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Here are the dates of the above references.
 * 1. AAAS Source Oct 2012.
 * 2. decade of research 2010
 * 3. pamela ronald review article May 2011
 * 4. AMA 2012
 * 5. Sci Am Aug 2013
 * 6 WHO May 2014
 * 7. FAO 2004
 * 8a Nature editorial September 2013
 * 8b German academies 2006
 * 8c english Summary of French academies report Dead link
 * 8d Italian academies 2004
 * 8e washington post OCT 2013
 * 8f UC Davis ag extension 2006
 * 8g Trends in Biotechnology 2009
 * 8h Li, Quan; McCluskey, Jill; Wahl, Thomas 2004
 * 8i International Council for Science 2003
 * 9 national academies 2004
 * 10 Key, in Journal of Royal Society of Med 2008 AlbinoFerret  17:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for that but a couple fixes. #4 is AMA and 8g is Trends in Biotechnology.  thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed, copy paste got me again. AlbinoFerret  21:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

comments

 * on source 4. The Council is saying that a thorough premarket safety assessments ensure safety, they are not saying that such assessments exist-- they don't. The premarket safety assessments are voluntary.
 * "FDA’s science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The Council supports this science-based approach, and believes that thorough pre-market safety assessment and the FDA’s requirement that any material difference between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts be disclosed in labeling, are effective in ensuring the safety of bioengineered food. To better characterize the potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that permarket safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement."66.169.76.198 (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * on source 5. First point, biologists are not the only ones who study GM food. Second point, this is his subjective opinion-- and he can't be sure, as he goes on to note, because "scientists who see problems with GM food... keep quiet." Last, he is pointing to the same issue I've called out: it is difficult for scientists to study potential health impacts of GM food.66.169.76.198 (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * about your comment on source 4. Please name on GM food that has reached the market in the US without those assessments being done.  Yes, it is under the law "voluntary" but no one has ever brought a GM food to market without getting clearance. This is widely known and commented on.  Really - name one.  Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm apt enough at finding things on online, but I have no idea how one would begin to locate a list of approved GM foods and their premarket safety assessments without directly calling the FDA. I don't imagine that information is publicly available online; if you know it is, it'd be good to share. Yet even if the biotech industry did in fact submit voluntary assessments in every case, common sense can tell you how little this means for the safety of the food in question. If that common sense doesn't speak to you, however, but you're still curious, I'd recommend looking at Clean Water Act compliance, which is also largely conducted through self-assessment, and is fraught with instances of industry abuse, such as omitting, manipulating or, in some cases, blatantly falsifying their submitted data. If this seems unrelated to the discussion to you, let me explain: once it is known that self-assessment by an industry is the primary source of market safety evaluation, you should immediately be suspicious, and I do not you are applying appropriate skepticism in this case. There is a history of violation when self-assessment is used. I consider the CWA a good example for a quick search, only because the longer history of the CWA will make information easier for you locate than trying to find it for GM foods. Just if you're curious about that issue; I don't feel like doing more research on this matter.
 * A quick glace at the Pamela Ronald review reveals it is from a journal with an equivalent impact rating to that of the Domingo study, which makes it seem like there is a double standard applied regarding which sources are deemed acceptable in this discussion. A cursory glance at her study shows that one of her first citations for the safety of GM food didn't even have to do with food-- she cited an environmental journal looking at environmental issues. This is a strategy noted in the "No Consensus" letter-- many studies claiming that there is a consensus on the health issue are citing sources that do not even evaluate the health issue. All too often, the strategy of these "consensus" claimants is to create a wall of citations that does not actually support their claim.. As for the rest, I'm too tired to bother evaluating these sources. The idea that the burden of proof should fall so heavily on the opposers in this discussion to review all the pro-consensus sources, while the pro-consensus folks review few if any of the sources I have submitted, is distasteful. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * How does a Washington Post article meet MEDRS? TFD (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources 3 (Pamela Ronald) and 8g (Henry I Miller) and 8e (Washington Post): I noticed that only two sources (Ronald and Miller) use the exact term, "broad scientific consensus," so I checked them out and they are both highly visible, public proponents of biotechnology in agriculture, including genetic engineering. This would seem to make them less than independent sources. For that same reason, neither would pass the "impartiality test" that is the basis for the Washington Post findings: "Does the person or organization you trust admit to both risks and benefits? If not, chances are good that your source has a dog — financial or ideological — in the fight." --Tsavage (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the dates of origin of these sources / studies / opinions / whatever / are being called into question in some of the concerns, it would be helpful to have that listed amongst your sources list. Thanks. <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 12:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I just looked up all the dates and added them under the quotes. Since there are a good amount of sources in the last five years I think it would be a good idea to prune off the older stuff per WP:MEDDATE. AlbinoFerret  17:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and sorry for the late reply. I too agree entirely that all older sources should be weaned off. Five years sounds appropriate for medical research. Hope this gets noticed because this is one of the most important issues. This is one complicated RfC. Still have not !voted and perhaps will not, dreading the backlash. Thanks again. Added: I see the sub-section below this that you started, also on June 1. I shall read and comment there. Thanks again.  <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 15:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think most of the sources above take care to observe the distinction between the known and possible risks, and we should be sure to do the same. One of the little paradoxes of life is that processes that are essentially safe can be made unsafe when you start believing they can't be unsafe.  GM crops that are designed sanely, undergo regulatory scrutiny, and are approved for the market in industrialized countries are quite safe, to the point where no accident has yet been reported.  This does not mean that a GM free-for-all won't lead to some incident.  There are things that worry me like canola designed to produce 'fish oil' components.  Lipid biochemistry is very complex, touching on major issues like NSAIDs and cannabinoids and heart disease, and regulates many important processes such as inflammation.  We already have the terrible example of trans fats to know that unnatural lipids can cause Holocaust-like levels of mortality and still be very hard to document or regulate.  When GM manufacturers tamper with plant lipid mixtures with the intent of feeding them to fish (i.e. lowered regulatory scrutiny) to change their human nutritional values, there are real risks.  The responsible approach, whether for a regulator or an encyclopedia, is to recognize these risks and then, so long as we can, say that thankfully so far with good management they have been averted. Wnt (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * on source 3 Pamela Ronald's article is not a review article on GMO safety but on "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security."  She provides two sources for her statement on safety:  the U.S. (2002) and EU (2004/2008/2010) governments.  She is a geneticist.  Domingo otoh is a toxicologist who reviewed studies on GMO safety.  MEDRS says, "Ideal sources for biomedical content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews...written by experts in the relevant field."  TFD (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You think a professor at UC Davis, one of the top universities in the world at studying agriculture, ecology and genetics, who is also the director of their laboratory of crop genetics, isn't in the relevant field to discuss GMO safety? Clearly the journal who published her paper thought she was qualified, and we should trust their judgement over that of a Wikipedia editor. Additionally the National Academies and the Joint Research Centre are not "the U.S. and EU governments".TypingAway (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not whether you trust her opinion over mine - I have no opinion - but whether you trust the opinion of a geneticist who bases her opinion on two sources over a toxicologist who has reviewed all the papers written on the toxicology of GMO. MEDRS says we should give greater weight to the review study - do you have any policy, guideline or even common sense explanations why we should not?  Are there any review studies that support your opinion?  TFD (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want to argue for this particular paper at the moment, but in general I think an article like this should try to gather many sources and viewpoints. Certainly a preference for high-quality sources should not exclude the presentation of all notable viewpoints.  A well-written article should say what the best sources think on safety, but also outline all the main objections as well as all the main arguments why they are safe.  I think some people here sound like they expect a Wikipedia article to make it sound like the issue is settled and this is what the Truth is, but that's not what we're here for - we're here to help people research any aspect of the issues they want. Wnt (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that some of these sources are not listed in the actual Wikipedia article. GrayDuck156 (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

2011 peer-reviewed studies: No Consensus
No consensus on the safety of GM food: 2011 peer-reviewed study of research from peer-reviewed journals finds that roughly half of the animal feeding studies conducted in recent years showed there is cause for concern. Researchers noted,
 * "Diverse groups including consumers and environmental Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) have suggested that all GM foods/plants should be subjected to long-term animal feeding studies before approval for human consumption. In 2000 and 2006, we reviewed the information published in international scientific journals, noting that the number of references concerning human and animal toxicological/health risks studies on GM foods/plants was very limited. The main goal of the present review was to assess the current state-of-the-art regarding the potential adverse effects/safety assessment of GM plants for human consumption. The number of citations found in databases (PubMed and Scopus) has dramatically increased since 2006. However, new information on products such as potatoes, cucumber, peas or tomatoes, among others was not available. Corn/maize, rice, and soybeans were included in the present review. An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants."   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see this is mentioned above. .   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As soon as the scientific bodies of national and international standing that note the consensus, adopt a changed view based on this one paper, then we will change our article. Not until then, of course. Guy (Help!)
 * I wouldn't expect any changes based on this one review, not in our article nor by major scientific bodies - just as Jytdog uses 18 references to make a point, so too can we show the lack of consensus by acknowledging conclusions from multiple reviews.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Diverse groups including consumers and environmental Non Governmental Organizations..." We're looking for peer-reviewed science, not activists (on either side.) Lfstevens (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet another review from 2011 finds no safety consensus:


 * "Many scientific data indicate that animals fed by GM crops have been harmed or even died. Rats exposed to transgenic potatoes or soya had abnormal young sperm; cows, goats, buffalo, pigs and other livestock grazing on Bt-maize, GM cottonseed and certain biotech corn showed complications including early deliveries, abortions, infertility and also many died (26–30). However, this is a controversial subject as studies conducted by company producing the biotech crops did not show any negative effects of GM crops on mice (31). Although Agri-biotech companies do not accept the direct link between the GMFs consumption and human health problems, there are some examples given by the opponents. For example: The foodborne diseases such as soya allergies have increased over the past 10 years in USA and UK (32) and an epidemic of Morgellons disease in the US (33). There are also reports on hundreds of villagers and cotton handlers who developed skin allergy in India (34, 35). Recent studies have revealed that Bacillus thuringiensis corn expresses an allergenic protein which alters overall immunological reactions in the body (36, 37)."


 * "The aforementioned reports performed by independent GM researchers have lead to a concern about the risks of GMFs and the inherent risks associated with the genetic technology."


 * "At the present there is no peer-reviewed publication on clinical studies of GMF effects on human health."


 * "Current testing methods being used in bio-tech companies appear to be inadequate. For instance, only chemical analysis of some nutrients are reported and generally consider the GM crops equal to its conventional crops when no major differences are detected between the compound compositions in both products. Such approach is argued to guarantee that the GM crop is safe enough to be patented and commercially produced."   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The above article is a poorly written mess. I don't think it is suitable for our use. Lfstevens (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The "Avicenna J Med Biotechnol". OK.    Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you see as a problem? http://www.ajmb.org/En/About.aspx   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We are not discussing whether there is a consensus about GM foods being safe, but whether there is a consensus about them being as safe as their conventional counterparts. This entire section is irrelevant to the RFC. We already have the AAAS stating:
 * Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops **is no riskier** than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”
 * The AAAS comment was not peer-reviewed, makes false statements about the WHO and, given that it's merely a statement from the BoD and not an actual review, it should be questioned for bias. It was released one week before California's labeling vote, and AAAS Board member Nina Federoff was a previous board member of a biotech company with a stake in the vote. Finally, given that the GM foods of concern on the market have been around for less than 20 years, it seems premature to express a consensus on safety. Cancer can take years to develop, and the effects of GM food will be difficult to unravel. But aside from how lack of consensus is logical, given the lack of studies and the time needed to see effects, there are reliable sources that say there is no consensus. The United Nations and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, for one. And Domingo, who actually did a review of health studies examining GM food. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is generally accepted that we do not understand the risks associated with either conventional or genetically modified food, the purpose here is to discuss whether that risk is comparable to conventional foods, which we already have sources attesting to there being such a consensus.TypingAway (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you've been around Wikipedia for only a few weeks, so I'll cut you some slack, but no - what we are discussing is whether sources support the claims WP is making. "The purpose here is to discuss whether that risk is comparable to conventional foods" - totally wrong. We let the researchers do this, and then refer to RS (and in this case, MEDRS) and simply summarize it. We are looking at a variety of recent, peer reviewed papers in an attempt to see whether our presentation gives the reader a neutral and accurate view of the science to date.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   06:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To address this, why not change the sentence to: "Although there is limited research on the health effects^ of genetically modified food, with about half of those studies suggesting potentially adverse effects, the scientific consensus expressed by the AAAS is that GM food is as safe to consume as non-GM food, while the UN Environmental Programme disagrees that such consensus exists^^."
 * ^So stop pointing to papers that review environmental effects, please; check before you post
 * ^^Still feeling like my repeated calls to check the UN and Association of Nutrition and Dietetics publications have been ignored
 * ALL solved! You're welcome, for that beautiful work of editing.66.169.76.198 (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Still a bit problematic, in that it gives a lot more weight to dissent than is evident in the real world. For example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24041244 surveyed over 1,700 publications and found "The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops". You also have the EU, NAS, Royal Society and many other national bodies noting that there is no credible evidence of harm, whereas those claiming harm alost all lead with Seralini, a paper already retracted once and authored by someone with a documented anti-GMO bias who set out to prove that GMOs are dangerous - a clear red flag. After 30 years with zero provable adverse effects, "teach the controversy" is looking rather thin. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll chime in a bit more later, but I highly suggest folks read this from the climate change side of things as an interesting parallel. It's an extremely common tactic for fringe advocates to cry no consensus when they are taking advantage of most people's misconceptions on what scientific consensus means by citing just a single or handful of sources making their preferred claim. It's also common for such advocates to go with a moving goalpost fallacy and claim there's only limited research because X hasn't been studied yet, when the consensus side just doesn't consider the ideal relevant and doesn't give it mention in the first place. I'm seeing some of those mistakes being made in this conversation, so do remember that competence is required in the topic if someone wants to discuss scientific consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "competence is required in the topic if someone wants to discuss scientific consensus" Since we don't engage in original research, and our goal is to produce content that is readable and easily verifiable by a reasonably educated English-literate general reader, how much "competence" is required to check a statement in Wikipedia's voice, against its cited source? In the case of scientific and academic consensus, our rules seem quite clear: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." (WP:RS/AC). If we want to write "broad scientific consensus," literally in those words, we need at least one reliable, independent source that says that, or something very close that I will be able to recognize when I read it. Perhaps I'm not competent to comment here, though, you tell me! --Tsavage (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure why original research is being mentioned, but competence in understanding what scientific consensus is would mean that someone would not make the statement that there isn't consensus (as in the header of the section) by citing a single paper or a handful of selected ones (i.e., consensus is not unanimity). The same problem happens with climate changes deniers that cite published papers touting the fringe view claiming there is no consensus, when in reality there actually is consensus when you look at the 99% of papers/scientists out there. It's a confusing topic for non-scientists, so that's all that note was about (not intended to single anyone out) to make sure people check what consensus actually means. We can't engage in a tit for tat X said there is consensus, Y said there isn't from a WP:WEIGHT perspective with that in mind.


 * You misunderstood the section title, it was a reference to the findings of the papers. Above this section we have papers which are said to support the consensus statement, and I am adding reviews that say otherwise, in their own appropriately titled sections, for clarity. I know one thing about true scientists, they like to look at all sides of an issue. I'm trying to help with that for purposes of NPOV and for our readers.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC) See also, first two "Statements" at WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand your intention to say not in so many words that some editors don't seem to understand that scientific consensus simply means most agree. I mentioned original research, because competence is required to evaluate scientific material and draw conclusions, but it is not required to find a source that actually says, "broad consensus"; reliability of the source can be determined after that. You're pointing out undue weight, but isn't this the problem all around: we have a bunch of sources - a mix of studies, announcements by organizations, scientific opinion pieces, even a newspaper article - that seem to add up to a majority conclusion, but apparently no solid independent source actually says there is consensus, yet there is a determination by some editors to make this collection of sources say that in those sweeping words and none other. So maybe you could call it...tit for tat, whatever, there are other sources of varying weight that together indicate no consensus. What's the difference, with 18 sources, which are we weighing against what? In the end:"Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." --Tsavage (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The parallel is that a review study says there is no consensus on GMO safety while review studies say there is a consensus on climate change. TFD (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What I was mentioning above is that similar publications also claim there is no consensus on climate change, but are regarded as fringe viewpoints in the scientific discourse even though the paper was published. We're basically seeing the same thing in this topic basically as a strawman that scientific consensus only means you won't find someone saying otherwise and a single paper can refute the consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's not the intention (after all, there's so much text to sort through here), but when the pro-consensus folks in this discussion continue to suggest that only fringe sources disagree about consensus, and continue to ignore the major sources pointed out by myself and others, it makes me feel like you all are ignoring these sources on purpose. Among those sources are: 1) The United Nations Environmental Programme Report, linked at bottom of page 2) The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations report 3)The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (someone else linked elsewhere) 4)The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics report, linked at bottom of page and, of course, the fact that 5) Domingo's study is the only review to summarize studies on the health impacts of GM food 66.169.76.198 (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also ignored is a quotation from a source used to support the "consensus", which Sarah SV points out above:
 * "Part of the WHO's statement could be included in the paragraph as it's more nuanced and represents something other than the US/UK view. The WHO says: 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.
 *  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how one could claim that statement is ignored as they pretty much entirely reflects the current language. The whole reason why we cannot say all GM food is safe is because you technically need to assess each one as it comes down the pipeline. When you consider the entirely quote in context you provided rather than just the bolded part, nothing is being ignored. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingofaces43, no "similar publications also claim there is no consensus on climate change." All review studies on climate change - every single one - say that there is consensus on climate change.  However, the only review studies on GMO say that there is no consensus that GMO is safe.  So we have reliable sources saying there is consensus on climate change and saying there is no consensus on GMO safety.  Contrary to what Jytdog says, I am not a "true believer", I just want to accurately represent what reliable sources say.  I accept that the peer-reviewed review studies of GMO safety may be wrong, but I need sources to support your view.  I will say to you what I say to climate change deniers - please provide a review study that supports your view.  TFD (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that even a handful of what we consider "reliable" sources in the sense of reviews can still be considered fringe when dealing with statements of academic consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, on second glance it looks like folks were in the middle of a discussion at least about the UN source when TFD first brought it up, before I joined in and possibly cut that conversation short. My apologies there! (like I said, a lot of text...) If that approach to the conversation seemed productive to you all, I hope it continues; it looks like you might need to tap on someone more authoritative on the policies you were all discussing though? 66.169.76.198 (talk) 8:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.62.166 (talk)

2012 review: no safety consensus, risks acknowledged
PMC 3791249A. S. Bawa, K. R. Anilakumar   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Impact factor 1.123. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sources older than 5 years
I went through the sources and found quite a few that were older than 5 years. Per WP:MEDDATE we should be using sources that are done within the last 5 years. There appears to be plenty of newer sources in the list I added to the bottom of the the quotes section that the older ones should be removed. AlbinoFerret 21:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the really basic food safety questions here are not "hot" in mainstream science, Albino. No new science has arisen  - no new analytical technique that lets us detect things at a finer level, no actual science that calls the toxicity studies that have been done into real question, no new potential mechanism for toxicity .. the real world, mainstream science and regulation is still rolling along, outside of all the GMO activist drama.  The only thing that is really interesting from a scientific perspective, are results of a well-conducted long term animal feeding study, which of course any scientist worth his or her salt wants to see the results of. The EU Grace Project is working on that.  So MEDDATE is not a big deal here. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are sources being used from 2003 to 2013. The references from 2010 up should be plenty. Removing the older ones goes right along with MEDRS which MEDDATE is a section of, are you suggesting that MEDRS not be followed?  AlbinoFerret  04:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not move them to a subpage that is then linked from within one of the references? That could also address the objections that too many sources are being cited. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 06:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Because they are really not needed, one claim has 10 citations, only 1 is really needed to verify a claim. The newer sources make the same claim, why are we holding on to older sources in this case? Id really like to see a reason why they are necessary other than I just like it or I don't like them being removed. AlbinoFerret  14:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a lot more complicated than that. We use multiple citations all the time; among other things, they help us to establish weight. WP:CITEKILL (as discussed below) has a couple of examples of when it's reasonable to include citations that would be excessive in other contexts. It's especially common for situations like this one, where we have many high-quality sources which are disputed by many lower-quality sources. Ideally we wouldn't need multiple citation at all, but I doubt that removing it entirely will be possible until this article reaches FA-level quality. Of course, I'm speaking generally in this comment, since the single/multiple citation issue that you refer to doesn't address the question of which citations to include; and switching to single citation isn't the change you were proposing in any case. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 08:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The categorization of sources compiled thus far is innacurate. Some of the sources used to claim consensus don't meet MEDRS standards by a long shot (Washington Post article), while strong sources that don't support the desired claim are being blatantly ignored.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   09:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Washington Post article should be removed. That said, just at first glance at the list you linked, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is an organization of nonscientists and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is an international agreement, so neither of them are relevant for the sourcing of scientific facts. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 10:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The two of us have gone back and forth a lot about WP:MEDRS, an overbearing guideline that I would enjoy seeing deleted in its entirety - especially around archive 6 or so. You've put in a lot of effort lobbying in favor of it much more restrictive than I want, but, it still does not actually say that reviews older than five years should be deleted.  It advises editors to "look for" reviews newer than five years and says that newer reviews should be preferred to older primary sources.  I want Wikipedia to use reliable up to date information as feasible, but I don't want arbitrary cutoffs narrowing the depth of information that we provide.  I have read biological articles more than a century old that are still accurate and meaningful. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The situation is not that I suggest cutting out sources leaving none, or few. But there is an over abundance of sources in this case. One claim having 10. This is not needed. We should be removing older sources that are really not needed, bringing the article more up to date. By that I am not recommending only the newest sources, but within 5 years is a good rule of thumb. All it takes is one source for any claim. Holding on to 12 year old sources is not necessary and lowers the quality of the claim imho. What sources do you think really need to stay? How many of the older sources make claims that the newer ones dont? AlbinoFerret  13:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reading some of the comments on this page you might have some sense of the fierceness of anti-GMO advocates. It useful to have the references showing the breadth of the consensus, and there is no policy (or even guideline) that I am aware of, that forbids this. (if there is, please bring it).  So you appear to be arguing for a preference. And one that would leave editors working there in a bad situation of having POV-pushers playing the "duelling reference" game over something that has been settled in mainstream science for about a lomg time now. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content, not contributors.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a mistreatment, WP:MEDDATE is a guideline that specifically addresses this. So far I see no policy that speaks to keeping sources that are up to 12 years old when there is an over abundance of them. I have no strong opinions on the GMO battle. But I do have a policy based argument, whereas all I have got back on keeping them can be summed up as "I like keeping them because of an argument someone else may make". Please provided a policy or guideline that negates WP:MEDDATE or one that says stockpile old sources on a page to win arguments. AlbinoFerret
 * Looks like a misunderstanding of intent of MEDDATE. It is to make sure we are up to date with the most currently cycle of reviews, organization statements, etc. It doesn't mean sources older than 5 years must be removed as Wnt mentioned. There's a differences between MEDDATE for a single old source with a passing mention in determining weight for a single idea (the background you're probably more familiar with) and academic consensus.
 * If your concern is MEDDATE, what new sources are you going to use to replace the slightly older ones? Generally, we do not consider consensus statements dated or defunct until an equivalent update comes along that shows a change in thinking. That is because once something is pretty solidly confirmed at this level, it tends not to be mentioned in the scientific literature as much because scientists move on to other topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please address why 10 sources, half over 5 years old are needed to reference one claim and should not be removed. Why do not 5 suffice? What is the reason for keeping the older ones that require them? Why is this not WP:CITEOVERKILL  AlbinoFerret  15:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * no one said anything about "needed". citeoverkill is an essay. i have no idea how much consensus it has but i have never seen it before. you made it clear that you don't like it; i have explained why it is useful.  Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this just about that one statement in the beginning about "the broad scientific consensus"? Think that justifies the bundle of citations. Newer is preferred, but it's about broad consensus. Removing without replacing or arbitrarily cutting in half doesn't seem to enhance the point. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * To my understanding, essays by definition are not rated for level of consensus (it says so at the top of each one), but they can and are nominated for deletion if they contain information that is contrary to our general goals and methods, so existence is some measure of value. IMO, a good rule of thumb for additionally assessing value is whether an essay has been linked to from a higher level of guidance, such as a policy or guideline (I'm not sure whether all essays are so linked, or not). WP:CITEOVERKILL is linked to for further information from WP:BUNDLE, which is a section of the "Citing sources" guideline WP:CITE, concerning more than two or three citations.


 * CITEOVERKILL discusses unusual cases where more than three citations may be justified: "If there is a good reason to keep multiple citations, for example, to avoid perennial edit warring or because the sources offer a range of beneficial information, clutter may be avoided by merging the citations into a single footnote." This suggests that, if the purpose of 18 or however many sources is to "avoid perennial edit warring," a clear case of such edit warring should be evident AND, in this case, where a summary statement is being supported, each of those sources should on its own directly support the statement, per WP:RS/AC. If that is so, all but one or two should be merged into a single footnote, leaving only two or three inline references at most. At least, that's how I interpret that essay, which seems like a reasonable and common sense approach to assuring readability and relatively easy verifiability, and is what I was originally questioning as well, the long list of citations. Meanwhile, whether each source supports the conclusion is what seems in large part to be under discussion here. --Tsavage (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I see a bit over 100 references for this article, which I would call "just getting started". I mean, Final Fantasy (which is at the center of a web of about ten front page featured ads, so can be counted as perhaps what Wikipedia regards as its quintessential article of all time) has over 250 references, and that's not as controversial, broad, nor technical a topic. Wnt (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Raw numbers don't account for the fact that much is being kept out. This article is being kept stubbed so as not to have to reveal too much about this extraordinarily controversial topic. For instance, a simple mention of the % of Americans who favor GMO-labeling was kept out of the controversy section even though labeling was the topic. As well, the USDA's mention last month that they are creating a GMO-free label was also removed (both for bogus reasoning).   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The better comparison would be, if Final Fantasy were referenced the way the statement in question here is, with around 18 sources per item it would have over 4,000 sources, and in the same way, this article would have around 1,800. That surely is not reasonable, accessible verifiability for a general encycopedia reader. Anything over 2-3 sources increasingly calls the item into question (why so many?), and also makes it more difficult for a reader to verify - 18 is way past over the top. --Tsavage (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it should be clear that a statement about what the overall range of scientific opinion is on a contentious issue will have a larger number of references. It is not representative of this or any other article.  Trying to weigh and average how many references are allowed for X lines of text is a very bad way to write.  Even apart from that, I have favored above adding some text which somewhat dilutes the reference per text ratio, and I can certainly picture adding more text to further explain what is said in this paragraph. Wnt (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, it does seem reasonable at times to have a larger number of citations to support a contentious statement: "Here is a reliable source for this, and if you don't believe that, here are 17 more that all say the same thing." Each source should independently agree. The discussion here centers on "broad scientific consensus" (BSC), a phrase repeated in other GM food articles as well, and far too sweeping for the situation. The 18 or so sources here do not each individually support BSC, and I'm not sure even one of them does (in an earlier comment, I mentioned that AAAS seemed like good support, but on better examination, even that seems questionable). I got involved (in the previous thread) simply questioning the large number of citations, not the validity of the sources or statement. Now, having participated here, I am critical of the BSC statement, and can't see how it meets the reasonable and explicit WP:RS/AC. I think we can easily convey that a huge amount of testing and monitoring has not indicated a case where eating GM food has been shown to harm anyone and related points, using other, more informative language. Also, thanks for your comments throughout, I think they are practical and in the spirit of working out the best content possible! --Tsavage (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would say that I am strongly pro-GMO and anti-GMO, much as I am all for a farm combine when it means I buy cheap food but rather against it when someone is trying to run me down with it in a field. So if the antis are trying to get away with something by pushing hypothetical concerns that GMOs might be unsafe to eat, you are also trying to get away with something by pushing for the article only to cover the absence of known problems rather than the potential for unknown problems.  This article seems to avoid considering whether a GMO produced for non-food purposes is a GM food, to the extent that the Starlink corn recall is mentioned only in the See Also section; there is also a section that states that animals fed GM foods are indistinguishable from others, despite the example of canola fish oil that I mentioned above.  The philosophical problem though is that if the article would recognize that GM foods include food for animals and "pharming" that is not permitted to be sold for human consumption, then necessarily it must acknowledge that there are GM foods that are widely regarded to be unsafe (or more accurately, potentially unsafe) - which trumps your claim of scientific consensus on the narrower issue. Wnt (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Petrarchan47, I suggest opening a new thread on public perception and the removed material on GMO labeling. It is outside of the bounds of this RFC, but relevant to the article, and worthy of more thorough discussion. The archives only have a few brief discussions of the subject, the most relevant being 1 and 2. Dialectric (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * public perception is well-covered in the top-most section GM food controversies article, here. this article is about GM food per se. Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Spinoff daughter articles should be used to handle subtopics in more detail, and shouldn't be used to remove practically all of the material from where it is directly relevant, to a different location - a comprehensive summary version of the most relevant material from daughter articles should be in the parent article. Currently, in this article, there is no real coverage of public perception, only a three-paragraph "Controversies" section, with one of those paragraphs mostly devoted to stating that there is broad scientific consensus that GM food is safe, and explaining how testing is done (no apparent reason why it's in that section). IMO, that 67% of the adult US population does not believe that scientists understand the risks of GM food, and the issue of the huge perception gap between public and science, seems to be directly about this subject, and should be here. --Tsavage (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a difference between "GE no riskier than conventional breeding" and "GM food no riskier than conventional food"?
Any consensus equivalence seems to be for "genetic engineering of food crops is no riskier than conventional breeding of food crops." The first two sources state: We are looking for confirmation that there is a "broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." Those two sources state that GMOs are not inherently more likely to be harmful than conventionally bred crops: there is no reason to expect that risk of unintended harm is any greater in GMOs. That does not seem to reach "broad scientific consensus" that the actual risk is the same for every food on the market. A conventional hybrid crop could be harmful, and so could a GM crop, but not just because it is GM - I could therefore possibly conclude that all currently available foods are equally safe, but that is my conclusion, not what is explicitly stated in these sources.
 * "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques" - AAAS
 * "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies" - European Commission
 * The only source that actually says, "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat," is the third listed, by Pamela Ronald. We look for independent sources, ones likely to display objectivity; bias is not a reason to discount a source, however, a strong interest in promoting a particular point of view has to be weighed against the information being used. Ronald, a plant geneticist specializing in GM rice, is an active, public advocate for GE of food - "Ronald explained that her advocacy of G.M.O.s is deeply tied to her opposition to the use of harmful chemicals in agriculture" - speaking, writing, and debating from the "proGMO" position (e.g. "Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food," a recent TED Talk). Her conclusion is an expert's opinion, not a systematic review of scientific literature, and as such would seem to be best used (for neutrality) as a quote with in-text attribution, not as a main source for turning Ronald's statement into a summary statement in Wikipedia's voice.

These points have already been mentioned to some degree in different places in this RfC, putting them all in one place seems helpful. --Tsavage (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The full context of the EC quote is: "It is evident from this grouping that many of the research projects have been launched to address not only the scientific unknowns but, more importantly, public concerns about the potential environmental impact of GMOs, about food safety, the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops, and risk assessment strategies..... The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research,and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." So the answer to the question in your subject header, is no. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you imagine for a minute that we're not on opposing sides of something, instead, trying to work out the most, accurate and verifiable content, please follow my reasoning of the facts:


 * 1) The three most current main supports for the current RfC statement, that "eating available GM foods is as safe as eating conventional foods," are AAAS, EC/EU, and Ronald, in that they come closest to "broad scientific consensus" or equivalent wording (per WP:RS/AC).


 * 2) Of the three, the only report that explicitly considers a large body of scientific material is the EC/EU report, broadly looking at a total of 25 years of EU-funded research (the publication, "A decaded of EU-funded research," specifically only covers the more recent 10 years, 2001-2010). The relevant section explains that the latest 50 research projects (2001-2010) can be grouped into four areas: environmental impact, food safety, emerging technologies (biofuels, biomaterials), and risk assessment (policies and communication). So, a certain amount of EU-funded research in the last decade was directed specifically at food safety.


 * 3) In light of the total of 25 years of EU-funded research, and the various newly emerged research subcategories (environmental impact, food safety, etc), the EC/EU report says the main conclusion is that "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." To paraphrase, "of all the human methods of plant modification, genetic engineering has not proven to be inherently riskier a method than any other."


 * 4) The AAAS document, "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods," is a position piece opposing mandatory labeling legislation in the US. Its main argument is presented in the first three sentences:
 * "There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe." Here again, the statement is that GE in itself has not proven to introduce additional risk to plant modification, the risk is at most equivalent to all other modification methods, which we assume to be "safe."


 * 5) The AAAS document creates a stronger link betweem genetic modification and actual food by reinterpreting the same EC/EU report. For effect, they have combined the EU research summary with broad, semi-specific reference to other organizations' findings, to construct a somewhat ambiguous restatement of their own: it paraphrases the EC/EU statement which it quotes in an interestingly worded way, in effect saying, "all the most respected organizations agree, if we made equivalent foods by GE and by conventional breeding methods, the risks would be the same." This is then an echo of the EC/EU statement. The entire paragraph that includes the AAAS statement referenced here is:
 * "The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."


 * 6) Given the analysis in 5), the AAAS statement should perhaps not be treated as an independent source in this context, and used instead as an in-text attributed quote, with context made explicit, such as the title of the statement, or, "in a statement opposing mandatory GMO labeling, the AAS concluded..."


 * 6) The Ronald document is from a respected plant geneticist, specializing in GM rice, who is also an outspoken GM advocate, engaging in high profile public debates, making presentations, and writing books and online content. The source article appears in a scientific journal, but is not a systematic review of literature, it is an expert's overview of genetic engineering in agriculture, with some broad citations. Ronald is therefore not independent of the subject when editorializing professionally, therefore, this material should be attributed in-text, not cited as an independent source. Further, her safety reasoning still concludes:
 * ''"These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment."


 * 7) All three main sources, then, only explicitly agree that genetic engineering does not appear to introduce additional risk to plant modification than conventional methods. This does not take into account the actual modification efforts made in GM and in conventional crops. For example, have modifications been done to GM crops that currently could not be done using conventional methods - does substantial equivalence testing fully cover "exotic" situations? The conclusion that currently available foods are all equally safe is therefore a compound conclusion, looking at the substantial equivalence of GM and conventional breeding, the food safety record so far (no reported harm), and the effectiveness of regulation and oversight. No reliable independent source actually states that explicitly.


 * 8) Considering the nature of the term "broad scientific consensus," with a controversial subject like this, we should be extremely careful with its use, and probably avoid it. There is never a situation where that is the only, or even "the best," way to convey general scientific agreement. From our own scientific consensus article:
 * "In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy."


 * 9) We have to consider general readers' concerns with GM. GM results may be substantially equivalent to other methods, but it seems to be able to more easily produce more novel actual combinations than conventional breeding; what is the practical effect of combining the profit motivation with a more powerful breeding tool, how do we know what's really going on? Also, conventional breeding is being technologically pushed to be faster, therefore more powerful, so a major underlying question is: Is the current application of plant modification methods of any sort "safe"? We should be striving to write an article that doesn't present synthetic "facts" (in terms of what they represent, not WP:SYNTH), like scientific consensus at any one time, outside of useful, practical context from the general reader's point of view.


 * IMO, we should do away with the "broad scientific consensus" statement, and state the "general agreement" material with more detail, covering the concept of substantial equivalence, the safety testing and absence of harm reports to date, and the general regulatory framework, all in succinct, summary form, using attributed quotes as necessary. This is certainly doable. That's my argument, after having followed this interesting and somewhat complicated RfC. Hope I didn't waste anyone's time who read all this! :) --Tsavage (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the answer to your subject question remains no. you are splitting hairs. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Questioning sources is not splitting hairs. You're pushing for a controversial blanket statement that is only anywhere nearly supported (i.e. not supported) by non-independent sources writing specifically in favor of GM food. I'm not sure why you're insisting on this loaded phrase, "broad scientific consensus," if not to promote that position. It's a pronouncement that doesn't explain anything to readers, and the sources aren't there to support it, not per WP:RS/AC. And there are other ways to convey the information in the cited sources. Furthermore, explain how AAAS and Ronald are independent sources for the material cited here. Apart from the fact that saying genetic engineering is in and of itself no riskier as a way to modify food than any other method, is not saying that all food is safe. All the sources may seem to add up to a general agreement, but there are no reliable independent sources that actually say that, which is the whole point of verifiability. --Tsavage (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jytdog's point that this is hairsplitting. It is almost getting to the point of misrepresenting the sources. I'm seeing most of your discussion here being matters of personal opinion for opposition to the non-controversial consensus sentiment (at least in the scientific realm). To answer the title of this section, there is not a difference between the two. Food is the product of the breeding process. You evaluate the safety of a breeding process by evaluating the food. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "As safe as" = "as risky as". Each product on the market has been through case-by-case regulatory review; the speculation about possible GM food that you and others engage in, has nothing to do with actual marketed GM food.  The scientific consensus on this is clear.  there are lots of people with axes to grind.  that doesn't change the scientific consensus.  Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "It is almost getting to the point of misrepresenting the sources. I'm seeing most of your discussion here being matters of personal opinion" Please stop with hinting at personal accusations. If you think I'm misrepresenting sources, say it, it's all there to review. What does "almost getting to the point" mean? It is insulting for you to characterize my clearly presented questioning of sources and wording as mostly "personal opinion". If there is "broad scientific consensus," why isn't that unambiguously stated so we can source it and, no argument. I understand the vague unspoken nature of "consensus" within the realm, but that's why various bodies present public statements, and none of those statements have directly said what you want them to. All we have is that there is no inherent greater risk from genetic engineering than from conventional breeding. You can combine that with the food safety record, and the regulatory oversight record, and come to your own personal scientist's consensus conclusion, but we need that in writing for content. WP:RS/AC is quite clear. If I'm wrong about what the sources say, please prove it. --Tsavage (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I said what I said because it's not clear to what degree you're aware that you are misrepresenting summation of the sources. Either way it's a problem. It's common for people to be offended when they wander into scientific topics and are called out for being off base on their reasoning, but that's for you to deal with and not really relevant to this discussion. You are correct though that RS/AC is very clear, and we have a number of unambiguous sources which you are attempting to cast doubt on by claiming they are ambiguous. It's been rehashed in the conversation many times, but most of the sources are saying the same things in different ways. This tactic comes up all the time in other controversial topics where someone is trying to deny the consensus by muddying the water. Anyone can make statements of scientific consensus seem ambiguous to lay-folks if they push hard enough, and that's the argument I'm seeing pushed right now. I for one think it's time for the community to move on from this fringe viewpoint that there isn't a consensus.
 * We've gone above and beyond in terms of sourcing. We're always going to be fighting against that behavior, so you will need to do better than just saying the sources are ambiguous to stand apart from those other types of editors to for others to see merits in your concerns. You need to show clear differentiation if there really is such a disparity between the sources, rather than just saying the words are different when the meaning is the same. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If "most of the sources are saying the same things in different ways" and that's something that lay-folk can fail to understand, and requires trained scientific reasoning to decode, on Wikipedia, you can't do that decoding for the lay-folk, only the sources can. It may be frustrating, but we can't have a "vote" and say, WE all know this means that, and you lay-folk don't have the capacity to see it, so let's just say that for you. Verifiability is required, and if I can't clearly match the statement to the source, other language is needed, that doesn't require 18 citations to support. (If you put aside the FRINGE paranoia and just consider the intended outcome, an informed, satisfied general reader, perhaps you can get an inkling of the problem some see.) --Tsavage (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's basic knowledge that is being portrayed in the statements not needing an expertise level to be interpreted, but some basic competence in the topic is required as well to summarize those statements. That is the crux of what I was saying earlier. Considering that the content is quite verifiable according to the sources, I for one am moving on from this conversation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is in a way getting off point, but also really hitting the heart of the matter: you are implying that "science" is the result of a pure, objective, analytical engine that leads to absolutely best-guess probability of certain clearly defined outcomes. In fact, the science we're talking about here is what has been discovered in a decade or two in an extraordinarily complicated new field, largely guided and reported to the public through the lens of politics and business. "Broad scientific consensus" is a synthetic "fact," a conclusion that attempts to convey an elevated level of confidence in its object that in fact is "best guess at the moment," and not solely dependent on the actual scientific findings, but on how they are applied. What I have been arguing is that we need better language to convey what scientific evidence there is currently about GM food, than a politicized blanket statement as a prominent starting point for coverage. This does not ignore the mountain of scientific research, it just adds an EDITORIAL consideration to the mix, one appropriate to a general encyclopedia. Personally, I have not "played scientist," and not argued scientific evidence, only editorial: 18 sources, verifiability, a blanket statement, more informative wording. There is a flipside to FRINGE, a skeptic/debunker mindset that equally cannot see the necessity of effective communication, and wants to preemptively quarantine and stamp "FRINGE" and "PSEUDOSCIENCE" on the forehead of everything suspect: FRINGE vs DEBUNKER is not a great base for collaborative content development. (You can choose to hit-and-run comment, but that doesn't seem helpful.) --Tsavage (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Each product on the market has been through case-by-case regulatory review" If you had a source that actually said "broad scientific consensus that eating GM is no riskier than eating conventional," then you wouldn't need to be explaining how each product has been through regulatory review. "As safe as" = "as risky as" refers explicitly to the methods of crop modification, not the "currently marketed food," whatever exactly that is defined as. --Tsavage (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have replied to those issues elsewhere. b/n you and grayduck filling this RfC with walls of text it has become impossible to follow, so i understand why you can't find my respond to all these things.  you have each made it very clear that you oppose and what your reasons are... although with the walls of text whatever it is that you wanted to say (other than "oppose"), will be lost on any closer.   Jytdog (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The "walls of text" began with 18 citations for one item that requires direct, near verbatim support - so you can understand why I began by questioning all those citations. Just about everything I've said above has already been said as well, and by others, not me alone, and this itself has already been said, in the original comment in this section: "These points have already been mentioned to some degree in different places in this RfC, putting them all in one place seems helpful."


 * You seem to expect people to tire, with your own walls of text, posting to multiple boards, and so forth. I'm simply replying along with you. You seem to have more or less stopped actually addressing points that have been developed, and are now starting to accuse and warn: "hairsplitting," "I've already said it all," "lost on any closer," etc. Yet for example, you still haven't directly addressed, beyond "hairsplitting," how the modification methods having at worst the same inherent risk, is synonymous with eating modified food having the same risk. It may be a logical conclusion, one to the other, but it is by no means "the same" - a gun and a knife can ultimately only do the same fatal thing, but outcomes of using one or the other with the same end in mind are not necessarily equal - and the latter is not adequately found in sources; you disagree on verifiability with the sources, but haven't addressed my points concerning the first three listed sources, which you have said should be read first, in order. And it is not "just" me asking for better sourcing for the literal consensus statement, it's several editors, and a clearly worded WP:RS/AC, which you also haven't addressed. --Tsavage (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I certainly hope a closer has the good sense to realize that posting half a dozen words is not sufficient to show that all eighteen citations independently support every part of the opening sentence. Moreover, expecting readers to review all eighteen sources is not acceptable; doing so is almost equivalent to using www.google.com as a source. GrayDuck156 (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I see the labeling of a position as "fringe" and i recoil, because it's casting aspersions. I see this dialog being unhealthy. I see points being made that are not actually made. If a person is calling a wall of science "ambiguous" then a person is calling a wall of science "ambiguous". Those who are creating the "walls of text" are those who shift goalposts and use strawman argumentation. Expecting people to tire is obstructionism. SageRad (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage is correct; the articles compare GMO food to foods from crops bred using other genetic engineering methods, not to foods that evolved naturally and have been eaten for tens of thousands of years. GrayDuck156 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not accurate. Food from GM crops is compared to food from conventional crops, regardless of their origin. and btw, teosinte is not a food source, and i doubt that any food crop has "evolved naturally" or existed for "tens of thousands of years"  Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The AAAS source uses the phrase "foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." The EU source uses the phrase "conventional plant breeding technologies." GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Holy cow. Humans have been cultivating crops for millennia now and improving them the whole time. Please name any food derived from plants that is widely consumed today, where the plant is not the product of conventional breeding/improvement techniques. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The two phrases are equivalent in this context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you really do believe that the phrases are equivalent, you should have absolutely no problem with changing the wording in the article to better match the wording in the sources. Problem solved. GrayDuck156 (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I understand that in carefully managing the statement of degree of uncertainty in scientific findings (it is all about degrees of uncertainty, right?), the wording is cautious, and perhaps in some situations, that may be practically REINTERPRETED as a broader statement, somewhat like rewriting a legal contract in simpler language. So here, the argument is, "than conventional breeding" MEANS "than all other food, since all food has by now at some point or another over the last millennia been somehow altered or selected by humans, therefore, 'conventionally bred.'" However, for that to be work, we have to accept that "conventional breeding" applies to "all food other than GM food," which seems to require an additional source to support, and another source to support that that wide meaning is the one intended, and not the more logical-sounding, "current, modern conventional breeding methods being used alongside genetic engineering."


 * It may seem frustrating to some to use sources strictly (as suggested by WP:RS/AC for exactly the case of scientific consensus), but it would also be simple for the experts to explain themselves that much further, so why don't they? If we had a Cochrane review-like plain English version saying "there is broad scientific agreement that GM food is safe to eat," there would be no problem. But there so far isn't, only sources that explicitly compare two broad approaches to modification, with quite different practical capabilities, and leave the rest to the reader. --Tsavage (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of these arguments are getting into WP:OR territory by essentially saying the authors didn't explain their terminology enough. That is an issue with competency in the topic at hand rather than an issue with the sources and it seems we are spending a lot of time here trying to explain basic breeding concepts that the sources themselves do not make distinctions in. To be honest, that is why I'm not giving arguments in this particular conversation a lot of attention anymore. The question of why the experts didn't explain themselves further is fallacious because it's expected readers will have a basic understanding of the field. At this point, no argument has been made that there is a difference between breeding/food, so I see no need to continue the conversation at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "The question of why the experts didn't explain themselves further is fallacious because it's expected readers will have a basic understanding of the field." Which readers would those be? The AAAS public position paper, which seems to be the source most cited as support for the consensus statement, was written to argue against GM labeling, published as news on their web site, and seems obviously aimed at legislators, media reporters, and the general public, as a group, non-technical readers. It's essentially a form of press release. So your argument is that non-technical readers are expected to have a basic understanding of genetic engineering as it relates to food, such that they would know that comparing the inherent risks of genetic modification with conventional breeding is equivalent to comparing GM food to conventional food. I disagree with the equivalence, and that that is a reasonable assumption about the general reader. If you meant that some of the other sources were aimed at scientists, well, that's a problem with 18 citations. Any which way, your comment is unclear.


 * "A lot of these arguments are getting into WP:OR territory by essentially saying the authors didn't explain their terminology enough. That is an issue with competency in the topic at hand" - what is OR here is to have certain editors who claim specialized technical competency interpret in new, summary language, what they claim other editors don't have the competency to understand. If a source is beyond the understanding of a reasonably well-educated editor, then the remedy is not to have other editors self-accredit as experts and sort it out for them by writing new interpretations, the remedy is to find more transparent sources, or to quote sources directly. It's not difficult to understand, that is how Wikipedia functions with anonymous editors and no qualifications hierarchy: as far as actually writing content (as opposed to discussing content), we don't have experts who are able create content that other editors (and readers) who don't have the competence to verify from sources, have to take on faith. --Tsavage (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "A lot of these arguments are getting into WP:OR territory by essentially saying the authors didn't explain their terminology enough." I am not sure if my comment is being referred to, but my concern is with the Wikipedia article not defining its terms, not with the sources. All the sources in the world cannot definitively support an assertion that is vague and ambiguous GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the wording as is in terms of accurately representing the statements for a general reader. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for selection of two sources for consideration
, since you launched this RfC, and went so far as to update the original statement to further clarify it well after this discussion was underway, I'd like to request that you select just two sources that we can consider. My policy-based reasoning is as follows: So it should be easy to select, for good measure, TWO sources from the 18, and to consider them (likely some of that work has already been done and need only be refactored), regardless of how many additional sources may also support the statement, and may eventually be used as additional sources to support the statement as it would appear in the article. Declutter for discussion purposes. --Tsavage (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:VERIFIABILITY, trying to determine whether the sources support the statement, with 18 sources cited, has proven to be not too workable, given the RfC so far, it's been impossible to focus on a single citation to verify the statement.
 * Particularly per WP:RS/AC, a statement of scientific consensus requires direct wording as such in the source, so it should be straightforward to select the closest match.
 * Given the previous two points, and WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH, there should be a single definitive source that supports the statement, as far as identical or close wording, reliability, and independence (WP:INDY, indicated by WP:NOT).
 * Additional sources of whatever number, should each on their own verify the statement; a combination of sources should not be required (WP:SYNTH).

Uninvolved editors
Since the goal of an RfC is to get ultimately get input from uninvolved editors, I thought I'd check out the editor involvement of the votes here so far to help out the closer sort through things a little bit. I went through the contributions and looked at total talk page edits generally related to GMOs (GMO in the title, Mosanto, organic, etc. where the topic has some reach). Some people that obviously posted here don't have their edit showing up because the edit count tool only counts so many articles, but in those cases the editor would have extremely little involvement. I also compared that to total talk page edits to get a better picture of involvement in the topic for very high and low edit overall counts. At this time of posting, we have 20 supports and 14 opposes overall, but when you look at the number of edits under 10% (where I start to see names I don't really ever see here at least), we end up with 65% supporting and 35% opposing as far as definite responses go. I'm not going to say how anything should be weighted for consensus as that's the closer's job, so this is just for reference. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment If your attempt is to say I am involved, its false. The edits by me (24) appear to be mostly, if not all on the talk page, in this RFC and the following discussions on it. I dont believe I have ever edited the article, and no edits for it show up for me on X's tools. That is hardly the definition of "involved" in an article. I wonder how many others on your list are like me? AlbinoFerret  02:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You were listed pretty squarely amongst largely uninvolved editors (i.e., <10%), so I'm not seeing where you are coming from with those comments at all. You are correct though that these are talk page edits, as I pointed out in my original post. I wasn't going to go through and count individual edits in this RFC vs. otherwise, so those with a lower percentage of talk page posts from an initial vote and a couple responses would obviously be considered uninvolved in pretty much every case. This ultimately is just raw data for the closer to consider, which I why I didn't go into "painting" people a certain way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then the information is mostly useless if your only going to list talk page edits and not other edits. Someone could easily edit a page and have a low count of talk page edits on the topic compared to their total talk page edits. AlbinoFerret  03:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, talk page edits are actually the most important piece of information here. They show the degree of involvement in content disputes. If someone makes an edit to the actual article that is controversial, they're going to end up at the talk page anyways, but you also get people discussing who don't edit the article at the time of a given disputed here too. Either way, it's been made clear this is a measure of talk page involvement for the closer. How they interpret that is up to them, which is why I didn't go into any particular analysis of it all myself. One could go into further categorization such as TypingAway not quite fitting into the super involved editor group that well (new editor that happened to comment here at bit), but actually picking apart all this information is not something we should be concerned about as RfC respondents. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The only thing the closer needs to parse through are the responses to the question: "Do these sources support [this claim]?". This chart idea is OR and looks as if meant to suggest iVotes be judged based on something besides their assessment of the sources. Further, would you provide a source to support your claim that an RfC is "to get ultimately get input from uninvolved editors"? I haven't heard that.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reading WP:RFC should answer that question: "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. It uses a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations to advertise discussions to uninvolved editors." It makes it pretty clear uninvolved editor opinions are especially valued. That's largely why we do RfC's rather than just by local talk page consensus or lack thereof. Also, OR is a content policy. There's no violation of that policy here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm definitely uninvolved (except for those two edits that were quickly reverted). It's nice to finally feel appreciated!   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   06:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * you are definitely "involved" in GMO issues, P. You've been campaigning for two years about GMO articles in WP per this and this followed by this, and this and many, many other postings including March Against Monsanto which is the 5th-most edited article in all your WP work.  You are definitely "involved" Jytdog (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "picking apart all this information is not something we should be concerned about as RfC respondents" You've included this as part of the RfC, it's obviously meant to influence the evaluation of the discussion, so picking it apart is more than reasonable if one chooses to. There seem to be several problems with your design:
 * a high edit count is more likely for a contentious topic; more meaningful is the number of separate disputes: if an editor was involved in four Talk disputes, one GM-related, three not, and made seven comments about GM, and one each for non-GM, your chart would show that 70% of their edits are GM-related, when in fact only 25% of their Talk involvement was about GM.
 * one edit does not equal one comment, there are corrections, sometimes three or four or more for a single comment, correction rates will vary by editor, and corrections may well go up for some editors in heated, protracted discussions, so 10 edits may be 9 or 10 separate comments for one editor, and 3 or 4 for another who averages 2-3 corrections per comment.
 * low edit count could be the result of voting behavior, where an editor votes and does not participate in discussion (we see this regularly); therefore, an editor may be widely involved yet have a very low edit count (again, number of disputes would be better) - an editor who has supported 10 disputes with the same position, and with only 10 edits, seems a lot less uninvolved than an editor who has 50 comments in one long dispute.
 * And so on, like even with disputes, several may in fact be, for involvement measurement purposes, just one, as on this page, which started with the WHO thread, which was pushed into an RfC, and then several other secitons, all related. Etc. And food is such a general interest subject, chances are a greater number of editors would be involved in a GM food debate, than some of the many specialized disputes and wars going on, so using simple involvement as a measure of some sort of special interest is questionable. --Tsavage (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Another consideration regarding the number of edits made to this RfC is the fact that we were tasked with assessing 18 individual sources(!). This is by far the most labor intensive RfC I've been involved with in my time here.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   06:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's really up to the closer to use the information how they want, but this just measures who is generally more involved than others. That's why I included both raw edit counts and the overall percentage to address the first point. If an editor corrects a lot, you'd expect the same in all their edits, which would also be accounted for using the percentage. For editors who primarily vote but don't discuss very much, they would seem to be defined as generally uninvolved, or at least a good middle ground between the super involved editors and those who have never commented in this topic before. You’d expect those folks to show up with only a couple percent above 1. Either way, it’s all up to the closer to use this how they will. Because of that, I’m not going to try to claim who’s truly uninvolved or not, just as the rest of us should. It may be tempting for some to want to go the step further that after seeing that table and discuss involvement, but that is not our job as RfC respondents. It is only meant as a tool for the closer to use how they will and they should be able to figure out the various caveats on their own if they do decide to use it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an inappropriate and flawed data section designed to try and sway the closer. It is not on topic. Any closer who looks at this should disregard it because it seeks to place some editors in a category of those that should be ignored. That is totally inappropriate for anyone to suggest to a closer in an RFC. AlbinoFerret  16:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no swaying involved. The data is simply the data and is very relevant to assessing how involved someone is in the topic. I explicitly said I'm am not doing any categorizing of the data itself (that's the closer's job if they do), so please don't misrepresent me. If I were doing that, I would have made it very obvious. Others have tried to draw the conversation into actually categorizing people based on that data, but that's not our job as RfC respondents. The closer will determine how involved someone is and how to weight consensus however they do. This is only an additional piece of neutral information to potentially use. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to Closer: Please disregard the above table that starts this section.  The ranking created is absurd and anyone who has spent any time editing, discussing or watching the GMO articles would know it immediately.  Any table that ranks involvement in the GMO articles would put Jytdog at the top hands down without question.  The method described to compile the data is vague and makes it impossible to duplicate the results unless specifically defined.  In addition, this is yet another double-standard:  I have heard repeatedly from the strongest supporters of the RfC about the "problem" of "drive by editors" who are "not sufficiently familiar" with the GMO articles.  Now, these editors are supposed to be given preference?  Double-standard.  The closer should consider the best arguments made for the position, validity of those arguments, the veracity of statements made (e.g. per GrayDuck156's summary), rather than this arbitrary table. David Tornheim (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually not too hard to replicate since even just searching the exact terms I mentioned will get you probably at least 95% of the relevant talk pages. I don't believe anyone has claimed this table should solely be used, so it shouldn't be mischaracterizsd as such. It's only one piece of the RfC, but getting generally uninvolved editors is an important aspect of RfC. Instead of telling the closer what to do (I've never been suggesting anything of that sort), we should either be continuing the content discussion at this point or just wait for a close. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By the fact of it being posted, it is intended to influence the RfC outcome. And as I pointed out, it is not raw data, it is your novel construction, beginning with your selection of which articles to categorize as GMO-related (what was the set of keywords you used to identify GM articles?) to arrive at your GMO-related percentage. Meanwhile, "uninvolved editors" simply means fresh eyes to the discussion, it doesn't invalidate or devalue any other editors' comments: in principle, at least, it's all about the substance of the discussion.
 * If you'd like to continue the discussion, it's not that complicated. All we're looking for here is a reliable and independent source reviewing the scientific literature, that clearly and directly states, as described in detail in WP:RS/AC, the RfC proposition:
 * "A broad scientific consensus holds that eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food."
 * What we have examined of review-type sources say at best that there is no inherent greater risk in GM methods than in non-GM/conventional methods. And we do not have in those sources a definition or description of "currently marketed GM food." IMHO, it's that simple! --Tsavage (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already rehashed the various questions you asked about the table in previous posts, and made it the clear in the original post as well. As for the specific discussion on content you bring up, I see the various concerns the opposes discuss as thoroughly dismissed or satisfied (even if you or others aren't satisfied), so I see no need to comment on those sections currently by rehashing the same arguments unless something new comes up that hasn't been addressed. I'll chime in if there is something I feel that needs addressing, but I'm mainly just waiting for the close at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You say, "I see the various concerns the opposes discuss as thoroughly dismissed or satisfied" - Perhaps you could then help the closer out by applying table energy to summarizing your satisfying findings - it shouldn't be long or complicated, WP:RS/AC is quite clear, so the resolution for WP:V policy purposes should reside in a single citation:
 * 1. Pick a citation that supports the consensus statement;
 * 2. Summarize the arguments directly against it;
 * 3. Summarize the arguments that refute those arguments;
 * ...and there we should have it.
 * In fact, supporters have not acted to specify a single definitive source out of 18, despite being clearly asked. Opposes have nonetheless examined in itemized detail the most-mentioned and various other sources, in clear, policy-based language, for example, in the the comment found at "Oppose - Based on the following PAGs, comments, arguments and observations plucked from this RfC/Discussion". That seems like pretty much the best help one can give a closing editor. --Tsavage (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Since this table seems to be a personal attack on me as much as anything else, I would like to respond with two points. First, while WP:RfC does not define the term "uninvolved editor," I think that the phrase probably applies to me for two reasons. First, I had not formulated an opinion on the question at issue until I commented on the RfC. Second, I am not responsible for any of the content in the article. The other point I would like to raise is that the RfC would not have been started if Wikipedia policy had been adhered to because the creator of the RfC did not make a good faith effort to reach consensus among involved editors before seeking the input of uninvolved editors. WP:DISPUTE asserts that "[t]alking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. ... Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. ... Requests for Comment generally require that at least an effort be made to discuss the matter in question before making the request." The RfC was created in the context of Jytdog refusing to discuss the issue with involved editors and claiming that a separate issue--which he also refused to discuss in good faith--depended on the outcome of the RfC. GrayDuck156 (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * [Side issue: Does anyone want to express an opinion regarding my use of font coloring?] GrayDuck156 (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Requesting the input of uninvolved editors never made any sense for this topic. The only way for anyone to provide educated input is by carefully reading all eighteen sources and all of the arguments against their suitability for use as citations; I doubt any of the affirmative editors actually did so (with the possible exceptions of Jytdog and Kingofaces43). GrayDuck156 (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is ludicrous for GrayDuck156 to be at the top of the list as an "involved" editor. He has made a total of four edits to GMO articles (see this).  His first edit to any GMO article was only a month ago on 27 May 2015 (diff).  Compare that with Jytdog's 2281 edits to the top 6 articles he is involved in (4 GMO articles, Glyphosate and Monsanto) (which does not include 99 edits to Séralini affair, 92 edits to March Against Monsanto, 86 edits to Growth hormone,  83 edits to Genetic engineering, 83 edits to Bacillus thuringiensis, 82 edits to Bovine somatotropin, 77 edits to Genetically modified maize, 58 edits to Human cloning, 43 edits to Gene therapy and numerous other articles related to GMO's).  here.   Jytdog has been heavily involved since at least October 2015 (see here).  A table that ranks GrayDuck156 above Jytdog in involvement in the GMO articles is completely absurd.  A similar analysis reviewing involvement of edits on GMO related articles by the following editors show that labeling them "involved" is just as absurd: 66.169.76.198 here, Tsavage here, TypingAway here all show these editors have had little or no involvement in the GMO articles.  What they have in common is RECENT discussion on the talk page, including at the RfC.  The table is bogus and this section should be hatted. David Tornheim (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So much drama. Grayduck is a pure WP:SPA account and you are darn close, David. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ^Please refrain from personal attacks and accusations of bad faith. Focus on content, not editors, especially given what Petrarchan47 says next. David Tornheim (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * David, please actually read WP:SPA - it is descriptive and means "edits in only one subject". Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am an SPA in exactly the same way that all editors are SPAs when they are new. GrayDuck156 (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, so you are you, Jytdog. A look at the aggregate of your your contributions is astonishing with regard to anything GM related. You are the last person who should accuse anyone of being overly concerned with this topic. Anyway, is this really the appropriate page to discuss editors?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * i will be the first to say that I have put a lot of work into these articles and to discussing them, but I am very, very far from being a SPA. My overall contribs to this talk page over the years are clear in Kingoface's list and i am not complaining. I was curious as to whether one could come up with bytes contributed to this RfC specifically, rather than overall edit count to the Talk page; that would be more illustrative. It is very clear that "opposers" have written just walls and walls of text in this RfC but the objective measure would be useful. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is so obviously trying to deflect attention from the main issue - I suggest editors completely ignore it and move back to the central issue. Don't feed the ****. DrChrissy (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Established users, as well as SPAs, have clearly shown that the sources used by resident experts to support a claim of scientific consensus were not only advocacy, but in some cases flat out misrepresented (as with the FAO and WHO - see Sarah SV's "Comment" for more). It is concerning that the result is an attempt to discredit iVoters, rather than addressing Tsavage's request to find one or two sources that actually do qualify. None of the sources support the claim individually, nor as a group. There is a lot of hand waving here, by the very folks who have supported the use of advocacy sources and cherry-picked quotes that do not properly summarize the cited documents, and if that is the best response we're to expect, it says a lot about the weakness of their position/sources.


 * This was the point of the RfC: "do these sources support this (extraordinary) claim?" They do not. Any editor worth their salt should immediately be working towards making sure the article reflects what the science does say, and is not making unsupported claims at the very least. Any editors in support of using advocacy sources, misrepresenting the WHO, and ignoring the nuance reflected in the cited RS should probably not be working on this page. This article, and Wikipedia itself, was called out by a team of scientists for misrepresenting the facts and spreading a false SC claim. That is very serious. Predictably, the editors responsible try to discredit the paper, its publisher, and the 300 signatories. What is astonishing to me is that this is being allowed. There is ownership behaviour by editors who don't use sources properly, resulting in POV. Cries of SPA! don't change any of these facts.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Notices
Notices posted in the following places:
 * Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies
 * Talk:Genetically_modified_crops
 * Talk:Genetic_engineering
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink
 * User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
 * WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard since issues of WP:SYN were raised
 * WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard