Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 14

How to refer to ENSSER dispute
I see that reverted 's edit here.

Now, my opinion on this topic is that Jusdafax did the right thing, because s/he removed loaded language, an epitaph really, from the name of a group who made a statement.

If i were to place an epitaph on Monsanto, as "the company who sold PCBs knowing that they were carcinogenic, for forty years, is faced with a lawsuit by ..." then i bet you would take issue and edit this to just read "Monsanto".

Let's discuss this matter and not get into any more edit warring. Thanks gentlefolk. SageRad (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I fully agree, SageRad, and could not have stated it more clearly. Thanks. Jus  da  fax   01:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have notified the user about POV edits on his user page. prokaryotes (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ENSSER is clearly an advocacy group whose sole purpose is to advocate against GMOs. The analogy above re: Monsanto is hyperbolic and unhelpful, and that editors here think this comparison is apt serves notice to me to not waste my breath on discussing this further. Life's too short to bang my head against this wall. Yobol (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is your opinion (and Jytdog's) that ENSSER is an advocacy group, and it is an error to claim "whose sole purpose is to advocate against GMOs". Notice that NPOV is required if you want to contribute to the page. prokaryotes (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, of course not, their sole purpose isn't an anti-GMO advocacy. I'm sure it's just a huge coincidence that every single press release they've ever made in the existence of the group is anti-GMO in content. /rolls eyes. Yobol (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Anti-GMO is a label, and framing them as an advocacy group is opinion - both is not neutral, see also WP:OR. Another example, we could call them Award winning researchers concerned with food safety, but we don't make this claim neither, hence why Wikipedia articles are written in a neutral style. prokaryotes (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right,, eyes do roll. They are an advocacy group. But so is Monsanto, and we refer to them as just Monsanto. We need to use neutral language and not polarize the article. SageRad (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yobol, I am going to ask you nicely... Leave out your eye rolling. I also ask you to try and make your edit summaries better than a one-word "better." Thanks. Sage Rad continues to brilliantly express my thoughts. Neutrality is the goal here. Jus  da  fax   02:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Under NPOV we call a spade a spade especially when dealing with WP:FRINGE or advocacy groups. This one should be a snowball case if we're following NPOV. I'll have to check in the morning when I'm not on my phone, but I believe this similar content was discussed to death already at this article or a similar one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As SageRad points out in refutal, Monsanto is an advocacy group. This is an important distinction, and recognition of that fact is going to be crucial in this discussion. Jus  da  fax   03:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is by definition WP:TEND if it is being used to influence content discussion here, and I'm not going to comment on behavior further here. Monsanto is a business, not an advocacy group with a specific goal. You can see advocacy-like action from both, but the Monsanto boogey-man is not the topic of this content, nor are we directly citing them for anything controversial. We are strictly discussing ENSSER here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), states that there is no scientific consensus on the relative safety of GM food, and that because of research issues due to intellectual property rights, limited access to research material, differences in methods, analysis and the interpretation of data, it is not possible to state if GMOs are generally safe or unsafe, and instead must be a judged on case-by-case basis.
 * I am moving this here for discussion until we can get consensus on it, so we are not disrupting the article while we work on it: Here is the current version:


 * In my view, this is a FRINGE group advocating a FRINGE position. For those who argue, I will ask you to: a) point me to mainstream media (and I will even broaden that to include mainstream science journalism sources like Scientific American and the like) discussion of ENSSER and how it is described (I found none); b) look at the signatories to their petition claiming there is no consensus, and note the absenses - not even Jose Domingo (probably the leading scientist who is not part of the consensus) has signed, nor has Jordi Giné Bordonaba (co-author on his 2007 review), nor has A. L Van Eenennaam nor AE Young, nor has Magaña-Gómez; nor has Dona nor Arvanitoyannis.... all these are scientists who have published reviews who found some potential issues with safety.  None of them have signed.  Wikipedia should not give this group nor its claims much WEIGHT, per NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are several reliable secondary sources which cite the group on various topics. And they actually are in line with the WHO here that assessements must be made on a case by case basis. Hence why framing it as a fringe group is POV.prokaryotes (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please name those sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here, here, here, here, and at least 2 journal publications.prokaryotes (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is exactly my point. (the 2nd one, phys.org, is just a press release by ENSSER btw - check out the "provided by" statement at the bottom) Please note that I asked for mainstream media, or even mainstream science media, discussion of them. You provided none.  Jytdog (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The first reference is published by The Ecologist which is mainstream enough to have its own Wikipedia article. The second reference is Phys.Org and yes, it appears to be a press release, but are you suggesting that Phys.Org does not have editorial input or does not engage in fact checking? Again Phys.Org has its own Wikipedia article.  The third article was published by Science and Development Network; again this has its own Wikipedia article.  The fourth article was published by RT (TV network); again this has its own Wikipedia article. DrChrissy (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The group has exclusively made press releases about GE issues. Their own list of media coverage is distinctly underwhelming. I've found them panned in pro-GMO media and praised by GMO opponents. Their No scientific consensus has been cited three times in peer-reviewed publications. In the one of those three I have access to, Kohl et al., they are cited in the following manner: "The necessity for such a transparent and traceable summary is illustrated by a recent article by Hilbeck et al. (2015), discussing the diversity of scientific opinions and the problems in achieving a scientific consensus in order to conclude about GMO safety." FourViolas (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you ask John Entine, "ENSSER, for those not familiar with it, is an organization with a mission. Its members believe—this is faith and not science—that the debate over GMOs is over, that the technology is harmful and should be banned or restricted out of existence. Its members are among the most high profile anti-GMO activists in Europe." However, Jon Entine himself is an advocacy group. He is the founder of the Genetic Literacy Project, which is an industry mouthpiece essentially. He is a news person, not a scientist. Formerly worked for NBC news and now does news writing for the GMO industry. So it's a lot of "He said / She said" name calling back and forth across a partisan divide of this ideological issue.
 * Note that Entine's assessment is wrong in that ENSSER is not saying that "the debate on GMOs is over" but actually that is the position that the GMO industry would like to promote, that the debate is over and that there is "scientific consensus" that GMOs are completely safe. ENSSER is pushing against the closing of the debate in this way. In fact, to quote ENSSER: ""As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a "scientific consensus" on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is "over.""
 * Sure, ENSSER is a group of activist scientists and it is an advocacy group. But so is Monsanto. So is Jon Entine, who here says that ENSSER is an advocacy group, without irony. It's name calling all around. To categorize ENSSER as FRINGE and therefore inadmissible is not right. They're not fringe like flat earthers, or Holocaust deniers. They seem to represent a minority position -- but not a "tiny" position that would make them fringe. Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that minority positions are to be represented, though not positions held by only a tiny fraction of the population. SageRad (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog's argument about the signatories of the ENSSER petition is seriously flawed. Jytdog seems to be arguing that the absence of particular signatures somehow undermines a petition, however, it is pure speculation on why these signatures are absent. Now if Jytdog has evidence that these absent signatories refused to sign the petition, that would be worth noting, although it would be only a single individual's opinion. DrChrissy (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction: I see six peer-reviewed citers. I think the core issue here, which could lead to productive discussion, is whether those six citations constitute respectable WP:USEBYOTHERS, particularly citation without comment. I'm not familiar with typical citations-per-month for an open letter in this field; can anyone speak to that specifically?


 * On a tangential note, this non-neutral paper has some great insights on why writing this Wikipedia article is so difficult: anti-GMO results can be inconclusive and hard to detect, and their critics frequently fail to play by the rules and best practices of scientific discourse. It also contains the amusing spectacle of a refereed scientific paper properly attributing the assertion that opposition to its author's position is COWDUNG. FourViolas (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

GM animal feed: problematic claim regarding soy meal
The article claims “The high-protein defatted and toasted soy meal becomes livestock feed and dog food. 98% of the US soybean crop goes for livestock feed.” Of the two sources cited for this statement, neither says anything about dog food, one does not make the 98 percent claim, and although the other does make the latter claim, it is an error. Credible data are in USDA Agricultural Statistics 2013 and in the USDA ERS oilcrops spreadsheets, which indicate that that from 2010 through 2012, tonnage of US soybean oil production was 10 percent of US soybean production tonnage. Soybean oil exports were 12 percent of US soybean oil production. Most domestic use of soybean oil is for edible oil consumption, and most of the remainder is for industrial oils, fatty acids, soaps and biodiesel. Very little of the oil is used in animal feed. Thus these figures are enough to show that the Wikipedia article’s 98 percent figure is erroneous. (Perhaps it originated from misreading of the estimate that about 98 percent of soybean meal is used as animal feed.) Moreover, about 44 % of US soybean production was exported as beans,  for which there are very incomplete end use statistics. Thus there can be no certainty regarding the amount of exported soybeans fed to livestock and poultry. Soybean meal consumption (estimated by USDA as 44% CP equivalent) by US livestock and poultry recently has been about 35 percent of US soybean production tonnage. Seed and feed use (as uncrushed beans) and the calculation residual recently have accounted for about 3 percent of US annual soybean production, with use for seed alone accounting for roughly 2 percent. Thus US soy consumption by animals can be estimated at roughly 35 percent of US soybean production tonnage. If soy meal used in dog food is to be mentioned, one could also mention use for fish feed, which is estimated (by Cromwell) to exceed that. It seems misleading to mention only defatted and toasted soy meal used for animal feed, with no acknowledgement of full-fat soy meal (also heat treated, to denature trypsin inhibitors), which is also an important animal feed. Schafhirt (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As long as you have WP:RS references supporting your information, go ahead and correct the article. The soy meal article may also need correction.Dialectric (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I already made this correction somewhere, maybe in this article or maybe in another. That "98% of U.S. soybean crop" figure is plain wrong. What i have seen is a figure that 98% of soybean meal goes to animal feed. Note that this is a very very different thing. Meal is what's left over after processing into oil, which is a large use of soybean crops. I don't have time to source and change this right now, but i wanted to confirm the correction and add my experience. Thanks for catching this. SageRad (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: There is an article on soybean mean here. SageRad (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not being an administrator, I cannot edit the Genetically modified food article. I did some editing on the Soybean meal article.Schafhirt (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Page protection information
I notice the article is protected until Sep. 8. Where can I find information on how that came about? --Tsavage (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here. prokaryotes (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually there are currently three reports at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

The mess was started when Jytdog reported Prokaryotes, an act Jytdog had threatened to do, then said he would not, then did anyway, then retracted two days later on the grounds it was "stale." That first filing is still, as of this posting, to be found near the top of the page after the original report was withdrawn, but no admin would touch it. I have maintained that that filing was an abuse of process.

In the second filing, Prokaryotes filed against Kingofaces. At that point the decision was made to solve the larger problem by page protection here. Ditto for the third related filing where Jytdog is reported by DrChrissy regarding the Glyphosate article, resulting in that article being protected as well.

To my knowledge there has been no admin action to date against any of the involved editors, which may indicate a broad deep-rooted aversion to being involved in this overall dispute. Jus da  fax   21:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For editor's convenience, the diff of the case I have raised against Jytdog is here. DrChrissy (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I haven't read any of that (yet, I guess), but initially sounds like it is as much about the rash of filings as the actual edit warring - considering the dozens of editors, thousands (millions?) of words, and weeks invested in ongoing discussion, the editing skirmishes seem mild. Page protection for a week seems extreme. --Tsavage (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you're mentioning all these other cases as they don't have to do with this article excluding the first one mentioned by Prokaryotes. Please stick to the scope of this article on the talk page, especially per WP:FOC. People now have a link as to why the page is protected, so there's nothing more to add to this particular section on an article talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because these cases all feature the same cast of characters, the same type of article page protection, and are closely related. We are seeing a wide swath of Monsanto-related articles edited by a small group of people, and has led to at least two fairly drastic editing restrictions. Jus  da  fax   22:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, please focus on content on article talk pages, a policy we sorely need to have followed more in this topic. If you want to discuss non-content topics and edit behavior like you just mentioned in your last comment, please take it to a more appropriate forum such as a user talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we take it to your talkpage Kingofaces? DrChrissy (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to discuss on my talk page. The AN3 case is essentially reached its endpoint with page protection, and WP:DROPTHESTICK has been suggested by myself and other uninvolved editors at the board in order to focus on content instead. I for one intend to follow that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources for positions of advocacy groups
I notice that this has a template after this in the article:


 * Opponents such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace claim risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities.

Would a page from these group's websites which states their position be acceptable to cite here? I understand that primary sources should generally be avoided for backing up specific factual claims, but it seems to me that the best source to cite for an advocacy group's position on something would be material published by the group itself. Sarr Cat ∑;3 02:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That should be fine. Secondary sources are useful for 2 reasons: Verification, and to determine weight. Primary sources from each organization resolve the first problem, but not the second. Is it important that these organizations have those views? Only secondary sources can address that, but in the meantime, verification is better than no verification.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are some citations for the positions of the Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists , and Greenpeace. Can these please be inserted into the article in place of the ? I can't edit the article, seems there has been some drama and edit warring that has resulted in it being locked.  Sarr Cat ∑;3 04:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment We usually do not add a framing term in front of the company/organisation unless it is very specific about it, most parts of this article do not use a framing term, why should have these 3 organisations one? Readers who are not aware who Greenpeace is, can just click the link.prokaryotes (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What you call "framing" is providing context, which is exactly what an encyclopedia does. Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So why do you add context to these 3 organisations, but not to others? Makes not much sense, unless you specifically aim for framing.prokaryotes (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the one hand we have general agreement in the scientific community on the food safety issues on the other we have the perspective of some advocacy groups. That is what it is.. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: How do we define "advocacy group," what exactly is it supposed to mean? In recent discussions, referring to certain groups, such as the AAAS and AMA, as advocacy groups seemed to scandalize some editors, even when an organization self-identifies as being involved in advocacy (e.g. AMA Advocacy). When I hear the term in the context of Greenpeace, etc, I think of activists (activism: use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause), and there is a mildly pejorative edge to it, as in, driven (somewhat fanatical?) people determined to overcome opposition, also, non-neutral and not open to giving any validity to opposing views. So, do we mean activist groups? Are the terms synonymous? And then, of course, labeling a group in a way that may carry a value judgement does require sourcing. --Tsavage (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Tsavage, you raise a good point. Some terms, it seems, are naturally loaded.  I write about "animal welfare", but it seems that when editors want to infer a negative or extremist point of view, they use the term "animal rights".  The two are distinctly different.  I have lost count of the number of time where I have looked at the talk page of an article, most recently in the area of genetically modified organisms, and been confused as "who" is an "advocate" of "what".  Surely the term can be used both ways; we can advocate a pro-GM position, or advocate an anti-GM position.  I would advocate ;-) we stop using the term unless this is done with clarity. DrChrissy (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Advocacy group = "Advocacy groups (also known as pressure groups, lobby groups, campaign groups, interest groups, or special interest groups) use various forms of advocacy to influence public opinion and/or policy; they have played and continue to play an important part in the development of political and social systems. Groups vary considerably in size, influence, and motive; some have wide ranging long term social purposes, others are focused and are a response to an immediate issue or concern."  Not rocket science.  Again, Greenpeace is already listed there.  You guys are treating this like it is a negative label.  It is not.  Greenpeace does good work in the world and it is a great thing (outside of Wikipedia) to advocate for what you want.  Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom, requests for cases
A request for an Arbcom case and a AE request to apply pseudoscience discretionary sanctions  have been filed that may affect this article. All editors wishing to make a comment should visit the pages linked to. AlbinoFerret 16:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The AE request was closed and the Arbcom request is still open and accepting statements. AlbinoFerret  02:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

proposal for consensus statement
The closer said we should be able to get consensus with a minor tweak. Let's go slow. Tsavage, above you made a big deal out of "as safe as" vs "as risky as". So how about, this toned down a bit version?


 * "The scientific consensus holds that eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food. Minority views hold that there is some risk"  Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The "scientific consensus" needs MEDRS sourcing - it has none.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The minor tweak begins with removing "scientific consensus" - you have never directly addressed WP:RS/AC, which has been brought up many many times. You can interpret the various evidence - in theory no greater risk from GE; no documented harm so far - as scientific consensus for general GM food safety if you like, but there is no direct source for it, so that's SYNTH/OR. And the inaccurate, incomplete Regulation section that has the US information sourced to Monsanto, has to be fixed to be referenced in a "currently marketed" type statement - regulation determines what's (legally) on the market. --Tsavage (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Removing "scientific consensus" would be a major change, not a minor tweak. Jytdog (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The "scientific consensus" is, if for anything, that there is no greater risk inherent in genetic engineering than in conventional breeding - if you wish to keep "scientific consensus" then try amending the rest of the statement. I consider minor tweak to be changing a few words while maintaining exactly the same factual meaning. You seem to want to add the additional impact of a politically-loaded phrasing - "scientific consensus" - to summarize a set of evidence that can be communicated otherwise. You want to interpret WP:PAG however it suits you, liberally citing WP:FRINGE, which attempts to clarify core content policy for specific situations, while ignoring WP:RS/AC, which in the same way clarifies those core policies specifically for the use of "scientific consensus." --Tsavage (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, with sources:
 * "The scientific consensus holds that eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food.     Minority views hold that there is some risk. "


 * Incrementally better, but your "scientific consensus" is still unsupported, and still attributed to a mess of citations, instead of a single RS source per WP:RS/AC, perhaps with a second example of the same.


 * You persist in leading with the AAAS source, despite its rejection by several editors. It does not contain the required wording, it is not a review of scientific evidence, and AAAS is a general science advocacy organization and journal publisher, with membership open to scientists and non-scientists alike. Also, a similarly worded version of the most relevant portion of the AAAS statement appears without attribution in Monsanto's own voice:
 * ''"Governmental regulatory agencies, scientific organizations and leading health associations worldwide agree that food grown from GM crops is safe to eat. The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, among others that have examined the evidence, all come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is safe to eat and no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredi¬ents from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques (i.e. plant breeding)." Monsanto: Commonly Asked Questions about the Food Safety of GMOs


 * Monsanto mentions the AAAS as being against GMO labeling, and links to the AAAS anti-labeling statement as a third-party resource, while the preceding excerpt, unlike other quoted statements in that FAQ, is not attributed. Here is the equivalent statement from the AAAS release:


 * "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."Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods


 * In addition to the other reasons for rejecting the AAAS as RS for the "scientific consensus" statement, it is not clear whether the AAAS is paraphrasing Monsanto PR copy, or vice versa, or whether it's just coincidentally nearly identical. You need a better source for "scientific consensus." --Tsavage (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The rejection of the statement by the board of the AAAS and the claim that the board of the AAAS, arguably the most important nongovernmental scientific society in the US and the publisher of one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world, is a mouthpiece for Monsanto is really FRINGEy.   I'll bring this to RSN, so we can lay that to rest. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * which is done: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Jytdog (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I really think that the AAAS source shouldn't be dominating this discussion - we have a couple dozen strong sources that could support similar statements with minor rewording. I'd also comment that WT:MEDRS may be a better place for the reliability discussion.
 * Either way, I think this particular proposal still gives too much weight to the minority view ("minority" can be up to 49%, after all) - this would especially problematic for those readers who don't fully understand what "scientific consensus" means. Additionally, calling it a minority view in article text requires us to have sources directly calling it a minority view, per the same principles of WP:RS/AC. I wouldn't necessarily oppose anything organized along these lines, but it would need different sourcing and better qualification. Sunrise (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear that, and welcome alternative proposals from anybody. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Sunrise: You say, "I think this particular proposal still gives too much weight to the minority view."  You then go on to say, "Additionally, calling it a minority view in article text requires us to have sources directly calling it a minority view."  Then why are you calling the Domingo article (that is WP:MEDRS quality) a minority view if there is no RS calling it a minority view?  What WP:PAG are you relying on to make this claim that Domingo is a "minority" view if there is no WP:RS for this claim?  If WP:RS does not claim it is a "minority" (or WP:Fringe) view, then, therefore, doesn't it make more sense to assume that it has parity with other WP:MEDRS level sources, especially since this was written by experts in the field of toxicology? David Tornheim (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * David, the difference is that we do more analysis on talk pages than we can include in articles. We're allowed to (in fact, are required to) consider source-based rationales that some sources have more weight than others. We have a minimum cutoff point, set by RS or MEDRS, but that tends to obscure the fact that reliability is a continuum. In any case, if I say "this is a minority/fringe" on a talk page, it's an abbreviation for the full form of the argument: "the sources which support this viewpoint have less weight than those that don't, from which we can infer that it is minority/fringe," where the distinction between minority and fringe depends largely on the degree of the imbalance. However, I wouldn't consider that sufficient reasoning to include the statement in an article, because e.g. the process of determining reliability and weight involves considerations that would not be acceptable for article content proposals. Sunrise (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I find it troubling that you changed the wording for WP:RS/AC from "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold" to "The statement that many, all or most scientists or scholars hold", particularly since you are involved in this discussion which rests on this very guideline. Was this a unilateral decision to change the guideline to make it more lenient?    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC) I've reverted the change, it should go through community consensus process.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear to me that the same principle applies. Making an edit along those lines has been on my to-do list for a long time now and this discussion reminded me of it, though on reflection I should have realized it might look like that and continued to hold off. I've opened a section there but won't pursue it further. Sunrise (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Recap
The AAAS question at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard doesn't seem to be bringing anything new to this discussion, so hopefully editors are still around to continue here. What I've gathered so far:
 * 1. no source for a "consensus statement" on "all currently available GM food"
 * 2. substantial scientific agreement that GM does not introduce additional risk through the process itself compared to conventional breeding
 * 3. no documented cases of harm from GM food so far
 * 4. unclear on what "currently available/currently marketed GM food" is: not stated to what reference date that applies, and to which region: GM food on the international market, or in the various countries where regulations and approved products vary?

The last point is not...hair-splitting, it has been addressed previously in regard to an incomplete description of Regulation, in this and in the dedicated article. In particular, seems like the differences between the US regulatory framework and the rules elsewhere should be simply explained. So, the article needs improvement as well as the safety statement (also previously noted). --Tsavage (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The first is a minority view on this page and at RSN. The 2nd and 3rd are good. the 4th, I don't understand. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Either there is a source for the "consensus" or there is not, the "minority" argument doesn't make sense in this instance. Secondly, another review came out a few days ago and should be included (along with Domingo, the last of Jdog's references in the section above) in this assessment. If folks here are unable to obtain the full paper, I can summarize it when I have a bit of time.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In reply to your comments:


 * Point 1: Cite a single source that clearly states scientific consensus for all currently marketed GM food, per WP:RS/AC. Is it the AAAS? Risk equivalence between GE and conventional breeding methods is not the same as a risk/safety statement for specific products. Present one source to verify the claim as WP:PAGs require; back it up if you like with additional sources after that.


 * Point 4 is simple: What is "currently marketed GM food"? What are those foods specifically? "Currently" as of when? Marketed where (maybe I live in the UK, or New Zealand, or the US, or South Korea,... - not all available GM foods are approved for safety and on the market everywhere)? Unqualified, the scope is so broad and vague as to be practically meaningless, especially to our target general reader. If it means, "legally available in any market as of X date," that makes sense. Then, we just need a source that says "scientific consensus" or equivalent wording for no greater risk/as safe as, for that definition of "currently marketed." (See Point 1.)


 * Furthermore, the article should develop what is summarized in the lead. The scientific consensus statement is not clearly developed in the article, it is only repeated. There is no food safety section or reasonable overview, and the Regulation section does not provide a basic overview of the regulatory situation around the world. All of this is easily summarized in a few paragraphs. Pointing to other articles is not a remedy for deficiencies in this one. --Tsavage (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the body, not vice versa. The other two points are united, in that the relative safety is based on
 * a) an understanding of the science - that genetic engineering is not some crazy voodoo or in any way bizarre, but rather is routine - taking a gene from A sticking it in B happens, and has happened, in hundreds of research labs around the world every day for the last twenty years or so (very near the beginning of the AAAS statement: " 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."). So much of the opposition to GMOs is based on frank ignorance of this - that genetic engineering is as routine as buying milk to anyone even mildly familiar with contemporary biology.  This is one of my biggest frustrations in these discussions.  I talk to scientists everyday and I can't emphasize this enough - if they want to study the activity of some protein and they don't think twice - they don't blink - over the notion of slapping that gene into a plasmid, throwing that gene into bacteria, and making a bunch of it. It is like going to the store for milk. they don't even think twice about doing that in order to study some other thing -- genetic engineering is a commonly used tool in biology.   You can also order proteins made that way, or plasmids made that way, or even mice made that way, over the internet like you order a book from Amazon. The GE processis no big deal.
 * b) an understanding of the review process. The only relevant question then, is whether some given instance of a GM crop is safe to use and to eat.  As the AAAS statement discusses starting at the bottom of the second column, each instance goes through regulatory  review before it goes to market - the review process ensures that some given instance isn't allergenic or introduce some off-target toxicity - the risks are well known and tested for.  So the regulatory process ensures that currently marketed food is OK and that is how we end up with "currently marketed".  if you have some better way to summarize the idea that not any GM food imagineable is safe, but only those that have been through the regulatory process, i am all ears.
 * This is all discussed in the AAAS and in several of the other sources used to support the current statement. Which, by the way, I would be happy to consider modifications to, and I wish you would propose an alternative, Tsavage. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

In reply:


 * "the lead summarizes the body, not vice versa" - Please reread what I wrote until you understand it. The lead should summarize; the article should go into more detail, it should develop the subject. For the scientific consensus statement, this article does not go into more detail, it does not appropriately unpick the blanket consensus statement.


 * "a) an understanding of the science" - You've restated in 250 words what was last said in 18: "substantial scientific agreement that GM does not introduce additional risk through the process itself compared to conventional breeding." As for general readers, it is reasonable to assume many do not understand this concept, which is why it should be made clear in the article. However, no greater risk does not address the fact that GM allows creation of novel products that conventional breeding cannot practically achieve. You can't conflate an all-things-being-equal comparison between GM and conventional methods, with case by case actual results of the more powerful GM methods. (Yes, as I understand it, conventional methods are also being advanced and made more powerful, but GM remains well-ahead - please correct me here if I am wrong.)


 * "b) an understanding of the review process" - Exactly. As I pointed out, the differences in review process, which varies by country for those countries with GMO regulation, should be described and explained, and the fact that the US is uniquely favorable to commercialization of GM food should be noted, as should the fact that "a substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US’s approach to regulating GMOs," with a brief explanation. The AAAS statement specifically refers to the US review process only : "In order to receive regulatory approval in the United States, each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and testing." The situation is different in other countries. Some countries that, unlike the US, have specific national GMO legislation, do not have any GM food on the market. This is not at all made clear in the article. The bottom line here is that safety as a function of review processes is ultimately determined politically, not purely scientifically : how can we have scientific consensus over the results of political decisions about what science to apply and how to apply it?

If you want to inform the general reader, explain the verifiable reality in readable language. Don't try to fix misperceptions by trying to weight things in order to steer readers to "the truth," which is what this scientific consensus statement seems intended to do.

Regarding GM food safety, we should at the least:


 * describe risk equivalence between GM and conventional breeding;
 * describe substantial equivalence and how review processes are based on that approach;
 * touch on non-targeted assessment and traceability as scientifically of at least equal importance in safety evaluation;
 * discuss the situation with long-term testing;
 * present an overview of the percentage of GM foods in the human food supply around the world;
 * note that no harm has been reported so far from people eating GM foods.

This information in the article can then be summarized as a safety statement in the lead. All of those points are not difficult to present in a concise form (indeed, some of that information was once in this article, and was removed to other locations). IMHO, of course. --Tsavage (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, so now you are talking about the article, not the consensus statement per se. not a recap. OK then. So if that is what you what you want  to talk about, please let me know how you see this article working with content already in the Controversies article, in the Regulation of Release article, and apparently the GM crops article and the Genetic Engineering article (since your first bullet point is about growing crops, not about food) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Jytdog: No, this is not basis for another long and fruitless tangential discussion. This is a recap and continuation of the current discussion. Article improvement is already a central part of the current conversation around the consensus statement - you have participated in that, just scroll up to refresh your memory. The points are not new, only restated once again to answer you:
 * The current consensus statement needs to be reworded now - you have agreed with that - so that can be done independently, taking into account the main points: risk equivalence for methods, no harm so far, and non-uniformity of regulation worldwide.
 * The article also needs to be fixed. Eventually, we should arrive at something like what I outlined, article body and safety summary alike. Your previous WP:SYNC argument about daughter articles does not fly: one article should not suffer because other articles exist.
 * "Suggestions for reorganizing this article and related GM topics" was recently presented, above. It is consistent with everything else recently discussed.


 * All of these edits could be roughly committed in a couple hours, initially, mostly by cut and pasting from archived versions and daughter articles, immediately edited for readability, and then incrementally improved. None of it is internally contentious, apart from the consensus statement, it's mostly already sourced and published. In addition, the current (2014-2015) Library of Congress suite of GM0 restriction reports provide a highest quality secondary source for much of this, they include social context, and numerous - hundreds - of directly relevant citations for additional detail. It's not difficult to do, only resistance to improvement stands in the way.


 * Summary: We can fix the consensus statement now. And we can begin improving the article now. One does not need to follow the other - nothing special here, there is no rigid linear process, this is the way articles are usually edited on Wikipedia, incrementally and simultaneously on multiple fronts, by one or several editors. --Tsavage (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a highly contested article and it makes sense to agree on what we are going to do so all hell doesn't break loose. I really am happy to do talk about revising the conensus statement and look forward to sa suggestion from you on that. Your suggestion you linked to above about structure didn't make sense to me as I wrote there - I couldn't figure out what you meant.  Happy to keep discussing that but the terminology you were using just didn't communicate to me. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog: The question here is whether you continue to want some form of blanket safety statement, or whether summarizing the available evidence is sufficient. Other editors have proposed reworked wording of a statement that you've rejected. My opinion is that, for the lead, a paragraph on food safety explaining:
 * no evidence of harm so far (in context of 20 or so years on the market);
 * general scientific agreement that GM isn't inherently riskier - safety is considered case by case concerning the specific modification and not the method by which it was accomplished;
 * regulations (or lack thereof) on a country by country basis determine what is actually legally available.
 * At this point, that is my suggestion. It is not hard to write up. --Tsavage (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That was really helpful. Every bullet there is fine by me. Shall I propose actual content for discussion here, or would you like to? Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You can propose the content for discussion. --Tsavage (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice that when you mention no harm since 20 years on market, also mention that long term is unknown. Warnings on this come from credible sources, currently part of the article, i.e. horizontal gene transfer. prokaryotes (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's also a fringe element tucked into the long term is unknown type claims. There are moving goal-post arguments that get made in the context sometimes, so we'd need to be careful to avoid vague aspersions to the unknown and focus on what sources legitimately say are areas needed for future research. It can be tricky to sort out an arm-chair scientist hypothesis from a legitimately grounded concern here, so just a caution depending on what is actually proposed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The current version, reference No.93, contains a reliable source about long term consequences (unpredictable results). If you think this is fringe then provide some reliable source to back up the claims, also i wonder why this is in the current article version then.prokaryotes (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that one out. I removed it since it doesn't appear to fit WP:MEDRS There's no indication that this Vienna Doctor’s Chamber is a reputable organization in the field (there's really very little on it), and Dr. Hans-Peter Petutschnig appears to just be a PR person in the group, so we can't quote in terms of expertise either. That one actually does get into some vague arm waving that isn't taken seriously in literature on this topic, but that's beside the point when reliability is questionable.
 * There actually is a whole field of risk-analysis that actually addresses whether such concerns are legitimate or not. Some of that tends to be scattered within multiple reviews, but I've seen a few good sources that summarize the risk-analysis side of things pretty well that I've been meaning to look over again specifically for these articles. Another thing for the to-do list. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No sign that there is any fringe in it as you suggested above or has to do with MEDRS, I've re-added what appears to be very reasonable. It has also nothing to do with MEDRS (biomedical research).prokaryotes (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't addressing fringe for that specific source, just reliability. However, the content is directly addressing human health, so there is no question MEDRS applies here. If you're not quite catching the reliability issues I mentioned in my post above, it might be worth discussing in a separate section to keep the current discussion on more topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The reference is tied to the paragraph, and when we mention Greenpeace etc, (though the Vienna source isn't mentioned there), why not add those references too? This has nothing to do with MEDRS here, it has to do with the entire section. You remove now selectively reference to content which had been part of the article for months. Possible implications from long term effects are a issue raised, you can not make this fact go away by removing cites.prokaryotes (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And did you even read the statement, it calls for better research. prokaryotes (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment

 * Relevant study No scientific consensus on GMO safety or An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment, and there is much more, but since the above discussion is about an alleged consensus... prokaryotes (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * that source has been discussed to death and takes a FRINGE perspective. Jytdog (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Where was this source discussed previously? Link to the conversation of this source please, or I will have to assume you were not being honest.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   04:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Framing valid science as fringe is a concern, please take more care, otherwise I have to assume that your edits are agenda driven. Are you a paid editor?prokaryotes (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The 2015 Krimsky review has not been discussed here as far as I am aware. We have Domingo listed in the references that we're attempting to summarize (see top of this section, ref 7) to support The minority view holds that there is some risk. Domingo has already been accepted and arrives at essentially the same conclusion. We need to swap out Domingo in the refs above with the more recent one from Tufts, which includes Domingo and 7 other reviews in the assessment. "Fringe" is being used here incorrectly.


 * [An anti GMO labeling position paper by the board of the AAAS - a paper with which not all AAAS scientists agree, is not MEDRS but is being used to make a health claim in WP's voice. Oftentimes sources that favor the biotech industry have no problem making it into this article, and sources which have anything 'negative' to add will be 'discussed' here on the talk page until people end up retiring out of frustration.]
 * From a review of the Tufts paper:


 * A Tufts researcher, Sheldon Krimsky, recently published his assessment of the last seven years of peer-reviewed evidence, finding 26 studies that "reported adverse effects or uncertainties of GMOs fed to animals...Contrary to the claims of consensus, he found 26 studies that showed significant cause for concern in animal studies, among many studies that showed no harm.


 * Krimsky found eight reviews of the literature and they showed anything but consensus. Three cited cause for concern from existing animal studies. Two found inadequate evidence of harm that could affect humans, justifying the U.S. government’s principle that if GM crops are "substantially equivalent" to their non-GM counterparts, this is adequate to guarantee safety. Three reviews suggested that the evidence base is limited, the types of studies that have been done are inadequate to guarantee safety even if they show no harm, and further study and improved testing is warranted.


 * Another review of the paper from Daniel Hicks (AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow at the EPA) noted:


 * Krimsky’s primary claim in the first part is that the evidence of GM health hazards is conflicting and ambiguous, and consequently systematic reviews and organizational reports have arrived at incompatible conclusions. Some reports find no substantive reason to be concerned about GM health hazards; others are more cautious, and emphasize the relatively small number of studies that have claimed to find health hazards.

The longstanding safety claim does not have support as written. To write a new summary of the science, we should lay out the material being summarized. Jytdog listed sources above - it would be helpful to write a paragraph or two detailing the findings and various statements and then come up with a summary.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   04:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is very good now, "There is general scientific agreement that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food.[4][5][6][7][8][9] However, other sources conclude that because of research issues due to intellectual property rights, limited access to research material, differences in methods, analysis and the interpretation of data, it is not possible to state if GMOs are generally safe or unsafe, and instead must be a judged on case-by-case basis." And the question is then if we should add a safety or research section as well, and edits to the controversy section. prokaryotes (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a bit of fringe POVs/activism mired in the intellectual property rights, etc. type comments you see in sources out there, but the more important problem is that it's more of a distraction from why they are actually judged on a case by case basis. For a toxicological standpoint, each event undergoes risk analysis because it's the protein/gene product that is being tested for various safety parameters. The heart of most any consensus statement in papers is that transgenic processes themselves do not pose an increased safety risk; there are inherent risks with consuming any crop species or variety (e.g. Solanine, so it's no longer of a question of whether something is GM or not (it's just like any new gene at that point), but really what your chemical of interest is in the plant. The choice is just easier in this case when you know what you've added already instead of the unknown changes you get in conventional breeding.


 * We'd want to be more reflective of the above in any consensus statement in explaining why case by case analyses are done. Basically a two tiered statement saying the GM process itself doesn't increase risk, but like any crop variety, you'd need to do testing specifically on that to ensure more general safety. We do need to be careful about confounding that latter part into meaning that GM crops are unique in that they need to tested on a case by case basis if you decided to look for safety concerns. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We'd just need a good source for this, King, besides you. It would need translation per WP:TECHNICAL into language a non-scientist (the vast majority of WP readers) would understand - another reason to refer to RS and ignore OR.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It would help to see the sources being used, Prokaryotes, for the claims following "However...". I suppose the WHO and Krimsky/Tufts would suffice. And, of course a statement or section on the actual science to date must be included in the article. We might consider opening a separate TP section to discuss that.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Krimsky review has not been mentioned in our article yet. I'd like to ask again for you to support your claim that previous discussions took place about this source. Finally, do you have any objections to my summarizing the review and adding that to the article? I still believe we need a separate safety/health section, but I suppose this content can fit under "controversy" for now, since that's (oddly) where health effects are discussed.

This is the extent of our health effects/safety coverage:


 * From Lede:
 * While there is general scientific agreement that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food, there are controversies related to food safety,...


 * Body (controversy section):
 * There is general scientific agreement that food on the market from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food.

As TFD noted earlier here, "If are going to say there is a conflict in rs over what the scientific consensus is, we need a source that mentions the conflict, otherwise it is original research. What I found particularly bad about the RfC was that we were provided with numerous sources, many of which failed the MEDRS standards that the proposer claimed was so important. It was as if quantity could make up for lack of quality. I would like to revisit the issue. So far the only review studies that have been presented say that there is no scientific consensus, and I would therefore oppose presenting a false equivalency by presenting alternative views as having parity. With the current sources, the neutral position is to report what the review studies say and use them to explain the dissenting opinion."  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   16:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm only following this page semi regularly, so I may missed some earlier discussion, but at first glance I don't really see an issue with 2 papers Prokaryotes wants to use. Why would they be fringe? And where have they benn discussed before? Which policy are they supposed to violate?--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Tufts/Krimsky review has been dismissed by the arguments you see in this thread (above). It has not been discussed in any way, contrary to claims. The Domingo review was brought up in the RfC and dismissed with WP:OR. It was later characterized as a "minority view" here.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)