Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 13

Text about conflict of interest study
User added reference to a study about conflict of interest within GMO research, here. I've never seen that study before, and i'm glad to learn about it. User revised the text here with the reason stated "Not quite what the study says if someone really wants to be citing it here" and changed the text about it to: "Other concerns include research outcomes being affected by general conflict of interest, but there is no evidence of study outcomes being affected specifically by financial conflict of interest." I have an issue with the phrase "there is no evidence", as it implies that there is no evidence in the universe for this. That may or may not be true, but it's not supported by the article in question. Also, i looked up the paper and read it, and found that the results do show COI correlated strongly with outcomes of studies, when looked at through author affiliation with industry. Their sample size was rather small and only 6 of the 94 studies they surveyed had industry financial sponsorship. 5 of those 6 showed favorable results for GMOs but the sample was too small for statistical significance. On author affiliation, however, their results were in fact striking, and showed industry affiliation correlated to positive results with p<0.001. Therefore, i changed the text to: "One study did not show statistically significant evidence of study outcomes being affected specifically by sponsorship conflict of interest, but did find author affiliation conflict of interest to be strongly correlated to study outcome, concluding that 'articles where a COI was identified show a tendency to produce outcomes favorable to the associated commercial interests.'" If we want to truly be accurate about what the study says, this is accurate. They clearly stated the quote as their "main finding".on page 201, directly under the heading "Discussion". The previous text did not represent the study's results accurately. SageRad (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Like in the title, this should be mentioned "conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks".prokaryotes (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Good work, SageRad. I applaud the study, the initial post by Prokaryotes, and your careful effort and final text. Given the colossal amount of money at stake in this effort, and human nature being what it is, the results of the study don't come as a surprise, and I support inclusion without reservation. Jus  da  fax   13:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice that User  is making false accusations about my edits on my talk page now in regards to my edits here. Maybe the editor should not edit here, when he has obvious issues to understand Wikipedia guidelines or study results. prokaryotes (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Prokaryotes, please use the article talk page appropriately per WP:FOC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * SageRad, we cite reviews in Wikipedia's voice barring disputing secondary sources. That is why "no evidence" was used. Also keep in mind we don't engage in original research by critiquing studies.


 * That being said, the other side of the study is the "professional" COI. About half of those COIs were compositional studies. Those are often products that have already undergone in-house testing where negative results end in the project ending and never going to the independent review stage. That inherently biases the likelihood of positive results in those kinds of studies without some malicious assertion (i.e. correlation doesn't equal causation, especially when you miss important variables). Account for those types of studies and the p values can shift quite a bit towards insignificance. Those are the grumblings I've heard in the scientific community as well about the study. How Wikipedia handles this kind of source is interesting though because you can have the scientific community largely not cite it as legitimate, say it's not valid in some aspects, but not bother commenting on it in the literature. That happens in WP:FRINGE topics by definition, but it's an odd scenario for us here when a meta-analysis has potential issues in that fashion since we tend to take them at face value as secondary sources. It's really a higher level meta discussion for elsewhere since we aren't using the source for anything else right now, but just something to be aware of. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your assumptions about the study results are speculations. We report the results of the study, not what you allege is a study bias or not legitimate. prokaryotes (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I made no assertion that we would be adding content based on what I said, but they are more than speculations since there is discussion out there on it. Please slow down and read my post again as I very clearly stated "we don't engage in original research by critiquing studies" when it comes to adding content itself. SageRad simply posted part of the criticism out there on the study as background(which you didn't go after as "speculation"), so I provided some of the rest for background and thoughts for things to keep an eye out for as editors in the future (i.e., scientists just not acknowledging problematic studies instead of making big headline sources we can use as editors). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do personally agree with your concerns about the way that other variables may cause a correlation independent of causation (of funding and affiliation to favorable results for the industry). I hear your concerns about the way that the scientific chatter may not make it into reviews on less noted papers. I would love to see a larger sampling with the issues you mention taken into account. Ideally, similar to the concept of twin studies, a researcher would isolate individual papers on a certain topic, in which one was done by industry affiliated researchers, and the other was done by independent researchers, and put them side by side, and compare results. It would take a great deal of interpretive work, but it would be the way to probe this question more accurately. Correlation is not causation, but it is an indicator of possible causation. So much of science, and especially the social sciences (in which this study falls), is interpretive. SageRad (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the topic of sourcing a statement like "there is no evidence", i think that we cannot state "there is no evidence" unless we do have a secondary source (review article in the relevant field and topic) stating that there is no evidence. We as Wikipedia editors are not known to be qualified as experts in the relevant field to make that statement, so including it without a secondary source seems to me not supportable by sourcing standards. Better to say nothing than to say a possibly wrong thing. SageRad (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Scope of article
An editor recently reverted an edit here with the edit summary - "article currently focuses on actual food, not things in the pipeline. edit is also inaccurate; companies not countries apply for marketing approval." I was wondering what other editors thought about this. The transgenic fish already exist, the applications have already been filed, so this is all historical. DrChrissy (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Doc could you by any chance paste the text of the reference here? Since the source is a book, I am unable to assess it. As for the larger question, this topic is clearly within the scope of the article, in my view. Jus  da  fax   15:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also can not get the whole book, but the chapter on Transgenic fish is available in the preview here DrChrissy (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a whole article on genetically modified fish as well as AquAdvantage salmon, which is the actual product for which approval is being sought. There is no doubt about that and it has been discussed in the NY Times and other mainstream sources. Yes, it is real.
 * There were two problems with DrChrissy's edit. The proposed text was "In 2014, it was reported that Canada, China, Cuba and the United States had applied for approval of transgenic fish as food"  Per my revert this is garbled nonsense, as countries don't apply to themselves for regulatory approval; companies apply to countries' regulatory agencies.  More importantly, this article is generally about actual genetically modified food.  The GM fish may never be approved and may never actually become food.   Nonetheless, the article already says " but a GM salmon had been awaiting regulatory approval[85][86][87] since 1997.[88]" so the content is redundant in any case. I think we included content about this based on some passion in the past... i could do it with it not being here at all and initially forgot it was.
 * There are zillions of potential GM food products that have been created and developed to one extent or another by university labs and by companies; there would be no end to the scope of this article if we were to discuss all of them.
 * Again, back when we set up this article and the rest of the suite as it is currently organized (which is under discussion for change), the purpose of this article was to create something that had never existed in Wikipedia before - namely one place where people could come and see what food in their grocery stores was actually genetically modified. We can always agree to change the scope, but why anybody would want Wikipedia to be less useful to helping people identify GM food, especially in the US where it is not labelled, is quite beyond me. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC) (redact to fix error i made Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC))


 * Comment A brief mention that GM animals are also used for other things then food is an addition to the article, and your edit made that clear. Also i see no reason to remove the mention of fish, something which have been widely reported in the media, on grounds that there may or may not be other studies. prokaryotes (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Using your logic, we should delete the entire section on GM animals...how would that look to the readership..."Wikipedia has nothing to say on what might become one of the most important areas of biotechnology in the very near future". By the way, with reference to finding what GM food is available in the store, why then do we bother with History, Process and Controversies sections - this article should simply be a list. DrChrissy (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Read my comment again, i have nothing against the edit you made.prokaryotes (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Prokaryotes - the comment was directed at Jytdog. I thought the indentation showed that. DrChrissy (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I do realize that you are talking "at" me. For pete's sake I just realized that the article already says " but a GM salmon had been awaiting regulatory approval[85][86][87] since 1997.[88]"  So the content you added was also redudant. Which is an even better reason why your edit was not a good one.  Yes that section does get a bit CRYSTALBALLy and I think we included it because of some strong passion around that in the past.   There is no food from GM animals on the market now.  I would actually be fine with deleting it but I doubt that would stick.  Since the content is already there, this section is really fruitless. I've redacted my statement above [User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I'm wondering if the definition of this page should be limited to those things currently in the grocery store. If i were to come to this article as a non-involved person, i would think that the article, because of the title, would include the scope of things likely to enter the food supply in the future, if they're deemed of interest and significance by reliable sources. We use reliable source to determine significance of possible future events, so we're not operating a crystal ball, as Wikipedia editors. If coverage is significant on a topic, and it fits within the article scope as perceived by the public, then i think it merits a mention in the article.
 * On the topic of genetically modified salmon, i do find some notable recent coverage here:
 * NPR story on GM salmon (mentions the grocery store concept in the first paragraph, by the way)
 * Genetic Literacy Project article on GM salmon (says that the Biotechnology Industry Association and companies spent $4.1 million this year promoting GM salmon)
 * If it's noted in mainstream and pro-GMO press, then it seems suitable to mention briefly on this page, so that readers will know about the whole topic of genetically modified food, including what is in the pipeline for the near future with noted significance by mainstream press. SageRad (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate
in this set of difs you added a bunch of content about glyphosate. Glyphosate is not an herbicide; it is not genetically modified food. I reverted here. This is a very controversial article. Please do not edit aggressively. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC) (fix stupid drafting mistake Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Yes G indeed is a herbicide (further context Herbicide), and there are many parts which overlap, i.e. the modification to tolerate various herbicides, or the history section begins with "Food biotechnology is a branch of food science that seeks to improve foods and food production." Hence, why the mention of glyphospahte is relevant in the article of GMF. Vote below:


 * Include Per above.prokaryotes (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Include - The material is authoritative and well-sourced. Jus  da  fax   11:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a small part of the GMO controversies rather than about GM food in general and the sources barely mention GM food and it's therefore not appropriate to include the section as it was unless better sources are available which show that this is a major part of the debate over GM food. Even then, it would be only worth a brief mention rather than a whole section. SmartSE (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Glyphospahe is currently 4 times mentioned in the article. Where do you suggest we should add it? History section? Notice here are current news on the topic of GMF and G.Current news Scientists call for new review of herbicide, cite 'flawed' U.S. regulations - New England Journal of Medicine article calls for GMO labels on foods This all underlines why the content belongs in the article.prokaryotes (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog are you still against inclusion of The Lancet study, since your above argument is not valid? I suggest we could add this under a section named Herbicides, maybe move some other content there and add some more sources (New England Journal of Medicine) which call for labeling based on recent developments. prokaryotes (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Prokaryotes, if by "the lancet study" you mean the announcement of the new IARC classification of glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen", I was very involved in adding the content about new IARC finding to the Glyphosate article, which is where discussion about it belongs.  The announcement came out way back in March; you are apparently just catching up with that.  Please note that one of the leaders of IARC team said. "'Probable’ means that there was enough evidence to say it is more than possible, but not enough evidence to say it is a carcinogen.... It means you ought to be a little concerned about glyphosate."  The sky is not falling, and at this point no major market has changed its regulation based on the new IARC classfication - the full report has not even been pubished yet, and it is unlikely that anyone will take action til they can see the whole thing.  In any case, this article is about GM food per se; herbicides are not GM food.Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article is not about herbicides, why then is the word mentioned 5 times? The lede begins with "These have been engineered for resistance to pathogens and herbicides.. " The point is that these foods are sprayed with G, and that is a concern when a governmental organization labels the herbicide as "Probable human carcinogen". Anyway consensus will now determine if we include the content or not. prokaryotes (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say that glyphosate is a separate topic from genetically modified food, but it is so intertwined that it's an integral part of the story of genetically modified food, and it is found in most genetically modified food. I would like to see a way to tell the reality as it is, which is that the most common genetic modification of food crops presently is tolerance for glyphosate, and that glyphosate is in most genetically modified foods (as it is also in some non-GM foods as well, though typically in lower amounts). I think we can find a way to integrate glyphosate's position and role in genetically modified foods, and then link to the glyphosate article for all things specific to glyphosate. The topics are related but separate. Herbicide use dependent on genetic modification is definitely part of the story and dynamic of genetically modified foods, though. SageRad (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a RS article "GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer." for the connection.prokaryotes (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is an opinion piece by a well-known advocate for organic food and a well-known advocate against pesticides. Not a surprise; says nothing new that many people have not said before.  I get it that you are riled up Prokaryotes but please slow down.  The things you are raising are not new.  Please review the relevant talk pages and you will see lots of ongoing discussion.  Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog i notice that you use various labels and frame certain positions in a way what appears to fit your point of view. I looked at the page of the author and can read, a highly credible evidence-based advocate for public health - now compare this to your view, "a well-known advocate against pesticides". However, your personal opinion of the author is in fact irrelevant in the discussion, because his article is published in The England Journal of Medicine, and cited by what appears to be a reliable secondary source. Please try to be more objective, thanks.prokaryotes (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * opinion piece, not article. Editorials have limited use per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. He is also a well-known advocate for children's health, which is a great thing. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The only opinion i can read are your frequent posts on talk pages, which when i follow them normally turn in circles, just take this article talk page here. You have added nothing to the discussion actually, above you claim G is not a herbicide, now you change your argument, but RS is reporting on the editorial and there is a published study. prokaryotes (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said that G is not a herbicide... that is just kooky to claim that. There are two questions here - should this article about GM food have a section on glyphosate; and if so, what do we say about it?  I say no to the first, and you haven't given a good reason as to why we should include content on it.   If we do say anything, that content should reflect the current best sources (which would be the IARC study and the recent German review), and should be about glyphosate residues.  As I mentioned the IARC has not published their full report, but it appears that they are emphasizing epidemiological studies about farm workers who are exposed to glyphosate while they are working, which is a level and duration of exposure that has nothing to do exposure you would get from eating food derived from GM crops, almost all of which is highly processed (e.g. corn or soy oil) Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC) (i did make a drafting mistake Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC))
 * You wrote above: G is not an herbicide... DIF. Maybe you meant to write something else idk. Look it is very simple, the question is where we add the dif content we discuss in this section. IHMO under a section on Food production or Herbicides. This could be extended with the mention of calls for GMO labeling, but since that is very fresh maybe not exactly right now.prokaryotes (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So I did. stupid drafting mistake that I just fixed. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you notice that you put your evaluation of the science above those of the experts from The New England Journal? We go with the published sources. If you can add something great, but otherwise we have to use the sources mentioned, not what you think is or isn't relevant.prokaryotes (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not putting my opinion above anybody's. I am describing what the whole range of sources says. I get it that you are passionate about this because of one thing you just read, which is an advocacy piece - it is not a "study" or a review article - it is an advocacy piece. It is a reliable source for what those two guys think. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, that was my impression for a moment but anyway we discuss The Lancet study here not the editorial from TNEJ. I suggest you add something pointing out that the findings are about the food production process then, "spraying wast amounts of chemicals -- which are probably cancer causing, on food crops but lesser amounts are then later consumed by humans". This should go under a section called Food production, for further reading then See also etc. prokaryotes (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The piece in the Lancet is also not a study. It is a summary of a forthcoming monograph by the IARC on glyphosate.  Their conclusion of "probable carcinogen" (see again the quote from one of the IARC committee members as to what that means) came out of left field (no other major health authority has said anything like that - they are standing all alone out there with that classification)  and nobody understands how they got there; we won't know until they publish the full report.   We've gone ahead and included content about that in the glyphosate article, with appropriate context around it.  The full IARC monograph will eventually come out (when last I checked they were very behind in publishing them (something like a year) and things will get very interesting when that comes out.  So far, no major market regulatory agency has taken any action based on the announcement of the classification and the summary - all the MRLs for glyphosate are unchanged.   Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what your definition of major authority includes, for me this study comes from a reliable source Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits. I saw the lede from G article and i think it appears well written.prokaryotes (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I will come out and say this since you don't seem to understand how this worls. Pesticides cannot be used on crops unless they are cleared by regulatory authorities with regard to environmental effects, effects on workers while applying and handling them, and effects of food residues. The regulatory authority of every major country in the world has approved glyphosate for use on crop and has established MRLs. The role of the IARC is to provide opinions on things, but what they come out with as zero regulatory authority. No regulatory authority in any major market has changed its MRLs or other glyphosate-related regulation in light of the IARC's announcement of the new classification and publication of their summary. Nothing has changed in the real world. Advocates who hate pesticides and GM crops have been going crazy since March when the announcement was made (you are way behind the curve), but nothing has changed in any major market (yet) in reaction to the new classification. No other major scientific or medical body has come out in support of the IARC finding. Things are up in the air right now. Two things are clear - the IARC is away out there on its own, and advocates continue to make hay. So there is nothing - nothing - new in the NEJM editorial. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a nice synopsis, but doesn't change the facts of coverage in reliable sources. If you do not want to include the content here on this page, then just say it, or say what you consider acceptable. Above is everything in those regards, no need to create more wall of text. prokaryotes (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice that above you claim that no other authority made similar claims. However, there are other authorities, i.e. American Cancer Society or the EPA. prokaryotes (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What you are calling "a nice synopsis" is summarizing the reliable sources, which is what we do to determine WEIGHT, per the NPOV policy. You don't edit in a complex topic by picking up on a single source and running around Wikipedia shoving it into every article you can find.  Of the sources you bring there, ACS is just reporting the IARC classification. The EPA site is reporting their finding of not carcinogenic. Please read the sources you bring. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that the Perspective article in NEJM is a good source to use to include a very brief statement in the controversies section that explains the connection between glyphosate and genetically modified food, as that is the main point of that NEJM Perspective, and i think it is a reliable source to indicate that it is a controversy. Note that i don't consider it a reliable source to establish any facts on the controversy itself, but only to establish that there is controversy surrounding it. Note that there has also been a lot of backlash against that letter in NEJM as well, and one of those could be cited perhaps. SageRad (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I count 4 editors who are for a mention and 1 who does not say so explicit. Therefore i ask you as uninvolved in this edit so far to go ahead and add a mention. You can use above dif which contains the main reference and i do not object to the mention of the TEMJ addition, seems to fit very well. Maybe Jytdog wants to add his addition about the findings.prokaryotes (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS is not determined by counting "likes" Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So what do you think then, what is your opinion, i.e. Where, how and what should be included? Notice that we need DRN if you cannot answer these questions or object to a general brief mention. If you object, you object to a reliable source with enough coverage in secondary sources. Also if you cite MeDRS, it would help if you could point out how food is applied to MEDRS.prokaryotes (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest adding to the sentence in "Controversies" that begins "Other concerns include..." the phrase "... and changes in exposure to pesticides brought about by herbicide-tolerant GMO crops." I'll hold off from adding that in, as i think it's better to discuss it here first, on an article of this nature, especially given that Jytdog seems to have some concerns about it. I think that the brief mention of this as one aspect of controversy would be prudent, and citing that Perspectives letter in NEMJ seems like it would source that as being a concern. Other sources would argue in the other direction, that glyphosate is less toxic than herbicides it may have replaced (such as the article titled "Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide") to provide a counterpoint if desired. I notice that there is a breakaway article called Genetically modified food controversies that should contain this topic in more depth if it's deemed important. SageRad (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I second and fully endorse SageRad's proposal and evenhanded approach. Bravo! Jus  da  fax   23:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The editorial does not appear to meet WP:MEDRS and therefore dserves no WP:WEIGHT because it is not a high quality source for including in this article for any medical-related commentary (i.e. suggesting or implying GMOs may not be safe for consumption, etc). Certainly we need to find higher quality sources for any health related claims or implications. Yobol (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The NEMJ letter would not be used as a source for any health claims. It would be as a source to show that this is a controversial aspect of the topic of genetically modified food. I just wondered, myself, how other controversies are sourced in the Controversies section and i see that some are not sourced, while others are sourced to statements or documents that -- like the NEMJ letter -- voice the view that there is something to be concerned about. SageRad (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice 1) We discuss here primary addition of G is carcinogenic 2) TNEJ editorial indeed fits into the C section since it is about labelling based on the carcinogenic finds 3) The argument with MEDRS here is not valid, since most of the C section is sourced differently. Indeed most references of this article don't use MEDRS sources. There is an editorial we speak of which wants labels and a study widely discussed by the most reliable sources we know. prokaryotes (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yobol reverted the addition of the WHO study and the TNEJ article we discuss, here. He wrote that the mention of this in the controversy section is Undue weight . So first he claims it is against MEDRS, now he cites UNDUE. Since i do not want to edit war over this, maybe someone else will readd it. Notice that i will post RFC/DRN if we can not resolve the content dispute here. prokaryotes (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this today. We mention pesticide residues in the Controversies article, and I think that discussion could use a bit more fleshing out, there.  Once that is done, we can see if it rises to the lead of that article.  The Controversies section here is basically the lead of that article, per WP:SYNC, so then it would come over here.  I will work on that over the next few days.  Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I dont see this source in the discussion ], but I might have missed it. Perhaps it might be helpful in some way since its from the WHO. AlbinoFerret 01:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret, back in March, the IARC announced that they had classified glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen". They did that two ways - by publishing a summary of their forthcoming monograph in the Lancet which is discussed above, and they put out a press release.  You linked to the press release.  The full monograph itself hasn't published yet, and probably won't publish for about a year, based on their backlog. Jytdog (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * WHO Study Notice above Jytdog mentions farm workers. Here is a secondary source, "This decision on glyphosate was based mostly on research done in animals, with studies finding links between glyphosate and tumors in rodents. Some studies have also suggested that people who work with glyphosate may be at higher risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The decision on 2,4-D was based mostly on studies done in lab dishes and in animals; this research found that 2,4-D could cause oxidative stress, which is thought to increase cancer risk by damaging DNA." -- Jytdog's version above "..it appears that they are emphasizing epidemiological studies about farm workers who are exposed to glyphosate while they are working" Thus, the editor claim doesn't hold up to secondary sources. prokaryotes (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy of Harper reference
User talk:Yobol You recently corrected a reference I included in the article (Harper et al., 2009) - thanks very much for this. I found this article using Google Scholar and used the "cite" function to copy and paste the in-line reference. The Google Scholar citation is -
 * Harper, G. S., Brownlee, A., Hall, T. E., Seymour, R., Lyons, R., & Ledwith, P. (2009). Global progress toward transgenic food animals: a survey of publicly available information. St. Lucia (Qld.): CSIRO Livestock Industries. Online verkrijgbaar van http://www. foodstandards. gov. au/_srcfiles/Transgenic% 20Livestock% 20Review% 20CSIRO% 20FI NAL% 2012Dec20031. pdf. Toegang verkregen op, 9.

I can understand why you changed the publisher as this is in the document, but I do not understand how you found the different publication date (2003 c.f. 2009). The date is particularly important because I would probably not have used the source if I had known it was 12 years old rather than 6! (If anyone wishes to delete the source because of this, I will not complain.) Please understand, I am not complaining here, I am simply trying to find out if other tools are out there for checking reference details, and perhaps we should be checking the details provided by Google Scholar. DrChrissy (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I read the document, and noted that all of the references were 2003 and earlier, then googled it myself to see if it had been published elsewhere. Researchgate is a repository, so google scholar may be going off of when it was first placed there, rather than the original publication date. Yobol (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks very much for this. A warning for all of us that use Google Scholar. DrChrissy (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material on GM patent issues by Jytdog
Jytdog:

You deleted recently added material on patent issues relating to GM animals used to produce biopharmaceuticals. I think that was a mistake, perhaps induced by your excessive enthusiasm in favor of all things GMO. [;-)] You said your reason was that this is an article about GM foods. However, there is a section Genetically_modified_food in the article about "other GM uses" and it specifically discusses pharming. The deleted material was about that subject (pharming) and immediately followed a discussion in the article of pharming to "produce recombinant antithrombin, an anticoagulant protein drug." It was sourced. It was NPOV (gave both sides).

I think that the deleted material is directly relevant to that discussion. Is the GMO antithrombin and/or the process for it legally protectable or is it open to competitive imitation by anyone who pleases? Only a person so dedicated to Monsanto's view that nobody should ever mention an issue that might impair the furthering of Monsanto's proprietary GMO rights could think that a discussion of whether the law will or won't protect a GMO company from poachers should be quashed.

Rather than start an edit war over this with multiple reverts, why don't we open a discussion on this talk about whether and where the deleted material should be presented in Wikipedia? I would be happy to abide by the consensus, but I object to your arbitrary, bullying, unilateral approach to whatever you disagree with. You are just delete-happy. Why can't you talk things over first? You are not the only one in WP entitled to have an opinion. Why don't you see if you are a loner or are in the mainstream consensus before reacting?

I therefore suggest that you or I undo your deletion, that we invite a discussion here, and that we abide by the consensus. If that doesn't suit you, perhaps we should take this further elsewhere.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * here is the edit. Thanks for opening a discussion instead of edit warring, per WP:BRD.  Yes, that content is way, way out of scope, and was also wrong, and was also WP:OR.  We can discuss scope issues here if you like.  If you want to discuss the content itself, I opened a discussion at Talk:Pharming_(genetics).  Crazy editing going on here over the past couple of days. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor will just drag us now into another lengthly discussion, where he will explain how competent he is. I just begun looking over recent edits of editor Jytdog and it appears that he edits with a strong POV, additionally he regular shows signs of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, WP:BULLY, and disruptive editing. Just look at his revert history on this page or similar pages. Not exactly sure how to proceed but this might require admin attention.prokaryotes (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , i think that comment is out of line here. We can comment on behaviors of editors, but we cannot "poison the well" by predicting behaviors of editors in the way you did. I know of Jytdog's tendencies, and of his history with you, but even so, i treat each new discussion with the assumption of good faith, until there is a problematic behavior.
 * I personally agree with here that the topic of pharming should be touched on in this article on GM food, but should not get much weight because it is indeed out of scope. Pharma is not food, in the common parlance, and should be covered in its own article. SageRad (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pharma is currently mentioned in the article and i was referring to that, and i am referring above to the various reverts Jytdog makes. Basically if there is data about GMO food and patents then this belongs in this article. Though, it is not exactly clear from the edit history. Jytdog started another discussion here. prokaryotes (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It is off-topic, and is clearly a magnet for yet more offtopic content. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

, here you removed all reference to Pharming_(genetics) in this article. I support your position that pharming is not within the scope of this article for coverage, but i do think this article should mention pharming in that section, so the reader will know of an adjacent and closely related field of technology. Articles in Wikipedia do benefit from mentioning related areas of interest, and linking to the appropriate Wikipedia article on the adjacent topic. I think we need one sentence to mention the concept and link to the article. What do you think? SageRad (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is that Jytdog thinks the material he deleted is about whether animals can be patented (as with the oncomouse). But it isn't. The deleted material is about whether the product and process of pharming can be patented. Let's get that straight first. Then let's figure out if that is relevant to Wikipedian concerns and if so, where it should be presented. I hope to see some consensus emerge. I also hope Jytdog will get the idea that he should talk things over first before deleting. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with the notion to discuss first before deleting against consensus. Though, patent issues about pharmic belong in the pharming article. However, pharming should be mentioned here,, and was mentioned for several month, until now when Jytdog started to delete stuff without discussion, again.prokaryotes (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that we should simply add back a reference to Pharming (genetics) and call it a day. I'll do it. SageRad (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The content was perfect, brief and explained the term. Just a link is not the best option, readers might think it has to do with farming. prokaryotes (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I submit that both the issue of the content itself, and the preemptory removal without discussion are on the table here. In the Rfc section above, I strongly warned Jytdog just a few hours ago about his abrasive editing style. He chooses to continue editing here with methods that are arguably under the jurisdiction of WP:OWN. A cursory look at the material added and the referencing, along with PraeceptorIP's edit history, gives me confidence that they are acquainted with the topic and the literature. Per an emerging consensus, I support the readdition of the removed material, regardless of Jytdog's issues, which are increasingly desperate and disruptive. Jus  da  fax   02:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sage added something very close, but without the references. prokaryotes (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the removed content is not within the scope of this article. The content was not about GM food. It was about GM products, but they were non-food products. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Half the article is about growing and development of the food. Secondary sources frequently report about farming practices and food, because both is intervened. prokaryotes (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the removed material absolutely should be included. Both GM food crops and GM food animals are used for pharming and are therefore well within the scope.  Not mentioning this is like not mentioning "milk" in the [cow] article.  I also agree with Jusdafax that the editing behaviour of Jytdog on this page needs looking at.  This "delete first, ask questions later" approach is not limited to this page or related pages, but he even followed me to magnetic senses in animals to make this disruptive edit.  He is definitely showing WP:OWN here. DrChrissy (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog is going wild atm, readding his OR material to the lede, again without discussion. This editor is a good example for WP:OWN prokaryotes (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that WP:BRD is an optional editing technique, and is not recommended in some situations. It says, "BRD (bold, revert, discuss) is most useful for pages where seeking and achieving consensus in advance of the bold edit could be difficult, perhaps because it is not clear which other editors are watching or sufficiently interested in the page, though there are other suitable methods. Bold editing is not, however, a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing." Further, "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. Note: "BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring. Avoiding edit warring is a policy that all editors must follow." The essay also lists many alternatives to BRD editing. SageRad (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

, you have some good points.
 * In my opinion, whether the legal status of pharming biopharmaceurticals should be in or out ought to be determined by the consensus of those following this issue. At the moment, the consensus seems to be tilting slightly to out. It may take more discussion to be sure what the consensus is.
 * The issue of Jytdog's editing behavior or style is a problem for all on whom he imposes his views. He should be admonished to forget about BRD, because he does not exercise discretion in being BRD. He should not delete anymore without talking things over with those concerned. He might persuade the others. Or they might persuade him. Or they might by discussion work out a third path that is even better. But this constant preaching and delete first in the name of BRD really ought to stop. He is bringing out the worst in other editors (self perhaps not excluded!). Just look at his history. He has to acquire more common sense and common courtesy, or else take his personal problems or demons, if any, someplace else. If this is off-base, from the consensus stand, let me know. Thank you. / PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Readding of OR references
Recently i removed references which are not related to the content, in this dif. There is a opinion blog, a page which requires register/login, and references which do not contain info related to the paragraph. Additional i moved the WHO reference to the end of the paragraph and added the part about crossbreeding from that site. Jytdog and Yobol reverted these changes, back to what amounts to OR. prokaryotes (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "OR references" makes no sense. The link to the AMA report was just broken.  I fixed it.  Good link is here Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The NRC, the EU paper, both show not what the paragraph claims, see edit summary if you once would care to bother. Also suddenly you except opinion blogs, but elsewhere you do not even except WHO or Jorunal publications. Your judgement is obviously very one sided.prokaryotes (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The "scientific consensus statement" and its sourcing has all been under discussion for a long time. We just had a huge RfC over some of this with many, many participants, and no one else - no one else - has edited that as aggressively as you. Your edits are inappropriate on a controversial article. Again, if everyone edited as aggressively as you this article would have been at arbcom ages ago and under discretionary sanctions. You are showing no self-restraint here. Again please read WP:Controversial articles which provides very good guidance.  Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again read the edit summary or what i wrote above. Unless you specifically address my edits i have to ignore you.prokaryotes (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * there is no edit summary here or here or here. Which edit summary are you talking about? If you mean the edit summary of the dif you link to in your original post of this section, this diff, the edit summary says "rm opinion blog". In that diff you removed a statement by the AMA, the WHO FAQ, the NRC report, and a paper called A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010) and moved the WHO FAQ to the end and did something strange with it .  None of those are "opinion blogs" and that is an edit summary that misrepresents what you did there. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC) (corrected via REDACT Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC))
 * This edit here. The references do not match the paragraph, at least not those which i have removed. If the one reference you said you fixed then fine, but the others are either about labeling of GMO food or in 1 case an opinion blog, and 1 study support general safe, but also states GMO's should be judged on a case by case basis. The WHO reference was moved, again mentioned above. I did not checked the last 4 study references. And if you go to the page history and look at the edit summary you see that i commented every single reference i edited.prokaryotes (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again - which ref is an "opinon blog"? If you made a mistake, just acknowledge it, as I have done above. There were no "opinion blogs" cited as references. You gave no reason for removing the AMA source nor the the NRC report, nor the paper called A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010).  You did move the WHO source to the end and did something strange with it - you didn't delete it.   You are also not addressing the point that the content and sourcing you are editing aggressively has been under intense discussion on this page for something like three months now by dozens of editors, and only you are being disruptive and demanding changes to it now.  This is disruptive.  But really - what "opinion blog" was there?   Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As you can easily access from the edit summary, this dif, to a column at the Washington Post. Generally the WP is a reliable source, but if there are health statements in regards to safety we should use MEDRS sources, something you mentioned several times. But suddenly it shouldn't apply? prokaryotes (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

oh i see what you are referring to now. I don't agree that is some random blog. And your edit summary does not address your removal of the AMA source, the NRC, the decade of funded research paper, nor your abuse of the WHO source. Your edit summary didn't come even close to referring to what you actually did. Anyway enough of the edit summary discussion. Your edit removed signficant reliable sources. Please stop editing the consensus statement and sources and join the discussion. You can see the language I changed it to was suggested by Tsavage above. There was a conversation ongoing before you got here focused on trying to reach consensus. Please join it instead of forging ahead like a lone wolf. 16:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is not about the phrase that there is an agreement on safety, but that these reference mentioned, do not back up the phrase. The NRC is about labels, AMA appears also to be about labels, EU paper too, WHO is very broad and contains info on food safety, which you removed. Hence the only source which gives something similar to the phrase is the conclusion from the AAAS board, or update the reference. As it stands, it is wrong, and possibly in violation with OR and maybe MEDRS, when we consider the entire link farm.prokaryotes (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Prokaryots is absolutely right; the references that have been used to support the claim of a scientific consensus do constitute OR, and do not meet MEDRS requirements. This claim, and string of OR/SYNTH references, has been splashed all over Wikipedia. Only Jytdog probably knows just how many articles host the SC statement, but once we have this sorted out, using proper RS and summarizing the findings correctly, we'll need to find all the claims and correct them (here is just one example). Jytdog is incorrect when he admonishes Prokaryotes for 'aggressive editing'. Pro is simply editing, and making guideline-based corrections that should have been made months ago. There's nothing hurried about fixing gross errors months after they've been pointed out (ex: noting that the AAAS statement is advocacy rather than passing it off as MEDRS).  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   04:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Prokaryotes is a breath of fresh air, though hardly perfect editor. Still. Jytdog has been on quite a tear in the past 48 hours, including his filing a complaint against Prokaryotes at the editwarring noticeboard. His threats are too numerous to mention. I have urged a preventative block for Jytdog, since he has completely come off the rails today at Pharming (genetics) and that article's talk page, where he admits to being an angry editor, and a gratuitous insult to me at the User Talk:PraeceptorIP page. Enough is enough, and your suggestion is noted, and will eventually have to be acted on. I have a bad feeling though, that the grim chore of going through Jytdog's long edit history is going to be like turning over a rock: really scary.   Jus  da  fax   06:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What Pro is saying about sources is correct, as per our recent RfC. Here are snippets from it about the Washington Post source: Ensuing discussion:
 * Sunrise: ''I agree that the Washington Post article should be removed....[not] relevant for the sourcing of scientific facts."
 * TFD: 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.[24] 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.
 * 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
 * Why does [Domingo's 2011 review study] have less weight than a Washington Post article? - TFD
 * 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
 * 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

Not only are crappy sources (per WP:MEDRS) being used, but good ones are being ignored, and it appears that diversionary tactics such as outright lying on the TP are being used to keep these sources from reaching the WP audience. The sources, Domingo and the more recent uber-review from Tufts, say categorically that there is no agreement among scientists about GM food safety, and point to the fact that roughly 50% of studies have found harm. It is upsetting that one of the main proponents for MEDRS and of the larger goals of WikiProject Medicine - to reflect the most recent peer reviewed science in our articles - is responsible for skewing the facts and misrepresenting/squelching MEDRS when it doesn't fit a pro-biotech POV. This is justification for a topic ban, as I have said before.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the summary of the previous discussion. Note that popular media sources are treated in MEDRS at WP:MEDPOP. SageRad (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the mainstream popular media storiies are included to support the claim of the extent of the scientific agreement (consensus, general agreement, whatever), not what they agreeing about per se. The very strong AAAS, AMA, decade of EU studies, etc are there to support the subject of the scientific agreement. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

user of ENSSER source in the lead
Something that happened in the flurry of edits a couple of days ago, was the addition of content sourced from the ENSSER article to the lead of the article. Per WP:LEAD nothing should be in the lead that is not in the body, so I moved it to the body and attributed it, and added back content summarizing the controversies that was somehow removed, in these 2 diffs. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, please check again your references from the lede about general safety, some of them state that safety must be judged on a case by case basis, not just ENSSR. Also check the references per the lede paragraph per the discussion above on OR. Also readd what you have removed about the WHO and food safety (crossbreeding). prokaryotes (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Revert to OR
Recently editor Yobol reverted in this Dif, back to a version where content and references do not match. Additional he removed a statement by the WHO about outcrossing and that studies must be assessed on a case by cases basis. I notice that this is not the first edit when he reverts back to unsupported content, and removes reliable sourced content from authorities (WHO). Therefore i ask the editor to stop his unsupported reverting/POV-pushing and add per sources. prokaryotes (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) the version I am reverting to is one which is supported by the current content. Read the section regarding food safety, and my adjustment to the wording with the addition of "on the market" to match the content of the WHO document. 2) The discussion about "case by case" is already discussed in the 2nd paragraph of the section, so there is no need to repeat. Yobol (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The WHO study has nothing to do with the paragraph it is attributed to, they cite various issues, which you have removed. There is no other mention of outcrossing and the WHO report underlines that the ENSSER publications is not a fringe view. prokaryotes (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to add the WHO source to the 2nd paragraph regarding need for case-by-case study, go right ahead. Using the WHO to bolster the ENSSER statement of course is YOUR point, in trying to POV push, which is not going to fly. Yobol (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I mention this because it has been contested here. Also notice that teh current lede cites more studies which call for case by case assessments, not only the WHO or ENNSER, also elsewhere we name more then a single source as well. prokaryotes (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional you do not respond to your removal of two important findings by the WHO. Please readd them and stop edit warring based on your POV.prokaryotes (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added the WHO reference to the sentence regarding discussion of "case by case" analysis and added discussion of gene transfer and outcrossing to that sentence. In the future, it would be best to actually try to read the objections and make suggestions based on those rather than trying to bully your way through a discussion to get your own preferred version by accusing people of POV pushing, when your own hands are not clean. Yobol (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please add the sentence regarding discussion of "case by case" analysis, thanks.prokaryotes (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Prokaryotes, in what way do you understand that each of the "currently marketed GM food" products got to market? Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry i don't understand what you try to communicate, and your edit now makes no sense, "possible gene transfer to humans or genetic outcrossing to other organisms are satisfied." Add the sentence as you wrote above regarding discussion of "case by case" analysis (WHO authority). prokaryotes (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think i understand now what you referring to, the sentence you edited broadly refers to testing, okay - but it sounds odd with the satisfied at the end. ALso this removes all the safety concerns from the author, in the section which is supposed to address these.prokaryotes (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have just come out and said it - each instance of currently marketed GM food got there, and gets there, and will get there (until laws/regulations dramatically change) on a case by case basis. Nothing in the WHO source contradicts the "scientific consensus' statement - everything in it supports that statement. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The statement that there is a general safety agreement for all GMOs is at odds with sources such as the WHO who explicitly state that GMOs must be tested on a case by case basis. If you insist that it includes "all GMOs currently on the market", then you require to back this up with a reliable source.prokaryotes (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The source you currently cite states in those regards " 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." What you are doing is in violation of OR.prokaryotes (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * the statement does not say "all GM food" it says "currently marketed GM food" - food that has reached the market on a case by case basis. And the WHO source says "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. "  Also, I don't know if you are aware of this, but WHO/FAO consultations have formed some of the crucial foundations for the regulation of GM foods used in developed countries  Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog is distracting here, Yobol ignoring the discrepancies. The WHO states that outcrossing may be a problem for food safety and food security. The cite does not support the new edit by Yobol, which reads, "Further testing is then done on a case-by-case basis to ensure that concerns over potential toxicity, allergenicity, possible gene transfer to humans or genetic outcrossing to other organisms are satisfied" And it also does not support, "The WHO also states that GMOs must be assessed on a case-by-case basis." Yobol and Jytdog both support in this edit original research.prokaryotes (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)