Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 15

Additional high-quality sources for GMO articles that provide a balanced view
Much of the contentious editing activity surrounding our GMO-related articles stems from two recurring, polarizing editor concerns:
 * 1. the quality and summarizing of scientific sources, particularly around the issue of GM food safety (in the Talk pages, "mainstream scientific position" and characterizations of views as "FRINGE" are central to recent heated debates);
 * 2. the independence and reliability of secondary sources, the weight given to content items, and editor behavior, viewed in the context of WP:ADVOCACY - claims are made of anti-GMO POV-pushing against editors who seek to include content deemed to be FRINGE, and to a lesser degree, of corporate shilling and the like against those seen as actively supporting GMOs and the biotech industry.

One particularly effective result of one side of these debates dominating, is the routine labeling of content that may appear to challenge the safety and viability of GMOs as "controversial," because they are viewed as going against the mainstream science - content and interrelated articles are organized along these lines, segregating the controversial from other content, presumably as a way to avoid giving undue (reader-misleading) emphasis to the controversial views.

Fortunately, for GMO topics, we do have quite definitive, reliable, independent secondary sources - US Library of Congress (LOC) research reports, and the LOC's Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports - that cover much of the content in question. This is the research used by congressional lawmakers and other branches of the US federal government - when the US Supreme Court requests GMO background from the LOC, CRS reports are exactly what the court consults - so there can hardly be an argument against their highest standing for our editorial purposes.

Two excerpts illustrate the framing and substance of recent LOC/CRS findings for two key areas of our GMO content, food safety and labeling:


 * 2014: The Library of Congress > Law Library > Research & Reports > Legal Reports > Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States: Public and Scholarly Opinion: B. Scholarly Opinion: (section in its entirety) "Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council,[12] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[13] and the American Medical Association.[14]


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


 * 2011: Congressional Research Service: Agricultural Biotechnology: Background and Recent Issues: Other Selected Issues: Food Safety and Labeling: (first three paragraphs of the section) "In the United States, many consumers may be wary of GE foods out of fear that introduced genes could prove allergenic, introduce increased toxicity, or otherwise be harmful to human health. Some critics express concern that FDA is placing all the responsibility on manufacturers to generate safety data, as it does normally under its pre-market approval system, and is reviewing only the conclusions of industry-sponsored studies, rather than conducting its own tests. They also believe that the process lacks transparency and adequate public scrutiny of data. Others defend the current system. They counter that additional testing and oversight are unnecessary because all foods must meet the same rigorous federal safety standards regardless of whether or not they are genetically engineered.


 * "In July 2004, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council (IOM/NRC) of the National Academies of Science released a report generally supporting the proponents’ view. The IOM/NRC found that food safety should be assessed based on the composition of the altered food (e.g., whether it contains new compounds, unusually high levels of nutrients, or other significant traits) rather than how the food was produced (by genetic engineering or conventional methods). However, the IOM/NRC determined that the safety of modified foods should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and cautioned that scientists’ current ability to predict adverse consequences of genetic changes is limited.[72]


 * U.S. policy also does not require GE-derived foods to be so labeled as long as they are substantially the same as their more conventional counterparts. Nonetheless, some consumer groups continue to seek mandatory labeling of all GE foods. These groups argue that U.S. consumers, like their EU counterparts, should have an opportunity to see all relevant information on a label so that they can make food choices based on their own views about its perceived quality or safety. The food industry generally opposes compulsory labeling. It contends that consumers might interpret GE labels as “warning labels” implying that the foods are less safe or nutritious than conventional foods, when the industry believes the preponderance of science indicates otherwise. The industry also has asserted that mandatory labeling would require development of a costly and possibly unattainable system to ensure that GE and non-GE foods remain segregated from the farm to the store, with no added benefit to the consumer. The industry has asserted that if consumers want to purchase GE-free products, the market will support a voluntary system, as exists for organic foods (where rules already prohibit GE foods from being called “organic”).[73]"

These excerpts summarize the GMO areas of food safety and labeling in a plainly stated and neutral manner. There is no broad framing of "controversiality," and no finding of scientific consensus.

The use of strong framing language, such as labeling what are referred to in the CRS source as "issues" - important concerns - as "controversies," and characterizing a variety of noteworthy positions and findings as FRINGE minority views - both common in our GMO content and discussions - are directly opposed by the presentation in these sources.

The reports generally frame the issues in terms of the views of consumers (the public) and the views of industry, presented equally, and of the regulatory frameworks and regulations that ultimately determine product safety, product availability, and which scientific findings and positions are applied to control research and commercial development.

Given these gold-standard references, our central policies of verifiability and neutrality require us to base our content - including in-article and inter-article organization - on their content, as far as facts, tone and weight, unless differing sources of equivalent or better quality are presented.

By using these best available sources, a good deal of the fuel for the contentious debates that continue to create an adversarial editing environment around GMO topics, can be eliminated squarely within core policy: interpretation and analysis of scientific findings, regulations, and the relative standing of different actors and their views can be left entirely to secondary sources that explicitly address them, as our core policies mandate.

RESEARCH NOTE: The LOC has a set of individual "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms" legal reports, in the general form: for Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, England and Wales, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, the United States, and the European Union; there is also a report on International Protocols. CRS reports are confidential unless individually released and published; relevant available reports can be found through web searches; the available "Agricultural Biotechnology: Background and Recent Issues" (2011) is 40 pages of material, prepared for members and committees of the US Congress, directly relevant to our GMO articles. LOC/CRS reports are fully footnoted, which confers credibility on hundreds of additional cited sources should they be used to provide more detail. --Tsavage (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * Public and Scholarly Opinion
 * Structure of Pertinent Legislation
 * Restrictions on Research, Production, and Marketing
 * Restrictions on Releasing Organisms into the Environment
 * Restrictions on GMOs in Foodstuffs
 * Liability Regime
 * Prominent Judicial Decisions


 * Two additions to your research:
 * As of today, over half of the EU has opted to go GMO-free: Fifteen of the 28 EU member nations are seeking to keep genetically modified organisms out of all or part of their territory, as the deadline for opting out of new European legislation on GMO crops nears, the bloc's executive arm said Thursday.
 * The Krimsky meta-review of GMO food safety studies from Tufts is now online. This is the highest quality source according to Wikpedia's highest standard (MEDRS), and includes all studies and reviews on GMO's/health from 2008 to the present.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A couple of comments on the above.


 * Per Wikipedia's health-related content sourcing guidelines, its far from clear to me that Tsavage has made his point by counterpoising the opinions of "the National Research Council,[12] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[13] and the American Medical Association.[14]'' against "some environmental organizations,[15] organic farming organizations,[16] ...consumer organizations [and] A substantial number of legal academics". A review of MEDRS may be in order here.  Will be be quoting Carl Sagan in constitutional law discussions as proof of a lack of consensus among legal scholars?


 * Counterpoising the position of "industry" with that of "consumers" does not negate or in any way offset the point above. In fact, the CRS is essentially saying that the sources that Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines hold as reliable are opposed by lay groups, activists, and lawyers, three groups whose expertise is not recongnized by MEDRS or by scientists generally.  Put another way, the opinion of non-scientists is important to determining political policy, but it has nothing to do with determining "scientific consensus" as required by MEDRS.


 * The same applies to "half of EU countries opting to go GMO-free". This is a political decision, made by  politicians, not a measure of scientific consensus


 * Several state legislatures in the US south have voted that creation science and not evolution should be taught in public schools. Clearly we all understand that legislative bodies are not reliable sources for scientific consensus and that there is no lack of "scientific consensus" regarding evolution, whatever the position of southern state legislatures.  The same applies here.


 * The Krimsy study was published in a journal with an impact factor of 2.4. If it is to be used as evidence of a vigourous dissent  to the safety of GMO foods among scientists, why was wasn't he able to get it published in Nature, Science, or another major journal?  The publication of this review in an obscure journal isn't proof of substantial dissent, it's evidence that the position taken in the paper is outside the mainstream.


 * 4.16.40.75 (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@4.16.40.75 Regarding your first two points, concerning Library of Congress/Congressional Research service material, I presented excerpts, and further highlighted specific items, to provide an example of what this highest quality secondary source material - the best available so far - has to say on the GM food topic. It speaks for itself: Comparing how we have been presenting facts in the article, and how the best available sources present the same material, we see a marked difference in language. With this best available material, we are policy-bound to follow the sources and not to create novel interpretations, conclusions, or nuanced wording. Your counterpoising argument would complicate a simple line of reasoning without altering the conclusion: here as elsewhere, policy dictates that we must literally follow the reliable secondary sources. Unless we can find issue with the reliability of the source, policy says the highest quality source must rule. --Tsavage (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * where we say "controversies," the best available source says, "issues"
 * where we say "scientific consensus," the best available source says, "Several scientific organizations ... have issued studies or statements"
 * where we frame opposing viewpoints in terms of advocacy groups and science, the best available source refers to "consumers" and "industry"
 * where we say that there is scientific consensus on GM food safety, the best available source says "the industry believes the preponderance of science indicates [that GM food is as safe or nutritious as conventional food]"
 * Comment: Something else to consider in this topic area, as the Arb case is winding down, is content related to the social and political issues - not just in the US, but in the EU as well. There have been notable articles about the gulf between scientific data and public perception re: the safety of eating GMO foods on the market.  I think encyclopedic coverage of GMOs should discuss these phenomena and the various advocacy positions - and not just the science.  The more I read about the topic, the more it seems like public concerns are focusing less on the safety of eating currently available GMO foods and more on the environmental issues associated with the entire GMO industry - from biodiversity, to ecological problems, to harmful pesticides, to superweeds, to monopolization of food supply, to very restrictive interpretation and enforcement of biotech patents, and even discussions about the independence of researchers and studies in the arena.  Some of these issues are touched on in the "controversies" article - but not in a very cogent manner.  These are not just "controversies" but broad societal issues being discussed.  So I'm saying we need to start thinking about how and where to integrate these issues into the GM suite of articles. Minor4th  00:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment/opinon: Yes, it seems pretty obvious to me as just an average-dumb first-world consumer citizen, that the public issue with GMOs isn't about current food per se, it's about overall use of the technology. Our Wikipedia articles, and the endless arguing around them that I've seen in recent months, focus on a simplistic "is this food we have here now safe to eat" view of GM food, which misses the point entirely.


 * The public is worried about misuse and just plain old greedy reductionist, WTF-in-hindsight use of powerful new and untested technology, and that view is only common sense (the same common sense that every Wikipedia guideline reminds us to apply), and of course it's a valid concern. "Science" is only one part of the GM picture, while another aspect, the regulatory situation, is much more complex, interesting and impactful - how the US arrived at its unique approach to GM regulation alone, the little I know of it so far, is fascinating and...highly informative (like the fact that the US and Europe were in reversed positions regarding a precautionary principle approach to food, only a few short decades ago, and how that changed) - and this determines everything about GM food in our midst at least as much as the science does.


 * Embracing all of this in a source-based, fiercely neutral, encyclopedic way on a crowd-driven open platform like Wikipedia could be great fun and produce a fantastic result - instead, from what we're arguing about, you'd think we were writing copy for those free health brochures you find in waiting rooms. Our proper direction is all there in WP:NPOV... We should do better. :) --Tsavage (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC regarding WHO study
Recently a study by the WHO found that the herbicide glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. This is also covered at the glyphosate article, now there are new calls for labelling GMOs (Secondary source in the mainstream media) based on this study. Since this article here is about GMOs and controversies -- including labelling, it seems perfectly fine to include the info. User Yobol removed the addition and claims it is WP:Undue (Weight). Above 4 editors agreed to include the findings, 2 (Jytdog and Yobol) cite that the source does not meet WP:MEDRS, however as pointed out the content is unrelated to MEDRS, doesn't gives any health advice, and is covered by reliable secondary sources. (Nature Science, The New England Journal of Medicine, in the mainstream media). prokaryotes (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Support inclusion - per Prokaryotes. Claims of Undue Weight are unconvincing and in my view approach disruptive. The material is factual, relevant to the article, and frankly, long overdue. Jus da  fax   00:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Summary We discuss this edit. prokaryotes (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Premature and aggressive RfC. This article is not about the controversies. This article is about GM food; it has a WP:SUMMARY section on Controversies taken from the lead of the Genetically modified food controversies article, per WP:SYNC.  OP seems to have read one article today and is now on fire to force content about it into WP, but appears to know almost nothing about this topic, or this article, or how the related WP articles are knit together.  A section on glyphosate per se is not appropriate in this article which is about GM  food per se.  Further content on glyphosate and other residues in/on GM food is probably relevant in the associated Genetically modified food controversies article; if is rises to the importance of being in the lead there, it can come into the WP:SUMMARY section on Controversies that is in this article, per WP:SYNC.  Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some sort of perception issue by editor Jytdog, in the past hours he frequently makes claims about my edits, calls them passionate, aggressive, threatens me with a ban on my talk page now. Ironically the only aggression i can observe comes from this very editor, who is very active on this and similar pages. He seems to be very close attached to the topic, maybe to close to make an objective judgement. prokaryotes (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The reality is that today you broke 3RR and are trying to force content into this highly controversial article without consensus. If everyone edited this article as you have done today, this article would be a war zone and we would have been at arbcom and under discretionary sanctions ages ago.  Your editing  is wildly inappropriate on a controversial article like this. So far it is just one day and I hoping that you will calm down and slow down - there is no deadline here. And you barely understand what you are editing about.  It is bad on many levels. Please slow down, read more, and talk more. I threatened you with nothing - I told that people who edit aggressively on controversial articles tend to get topic banned. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC) (I did not bring the 3RR case and am striking since this has become a distraction Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Maybe i should just ignore someone who obviously is not even able to count. prokaryotes (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , could you specify the 3 RR's you allege occurred? I am wondering, as i don't see it on first glance when looking at the article's edit history. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also like to see diffs supporting this charge of a 3RR violation, a blockable offense which Prokaryotes has denied. Charges of this sort should not be cast lightly. Jus  da  fax   04:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Jytdog has an ongoing history of inaccurate counting - see here[]. Perhaps this is a competency issue?DrChrissy (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems Jytdog struck the 3RR claim, and added some text saying he did not threaten anyone but only commented on Prokaryotes' talk page to the effect that "people who edit aggressively on controversial articles tend to get topic banned", which sounds too much to me like someone receiving a note that says "People who cross certain lines tend to be found in the river with concrete shoes" -- and Prokaryotes seems to have perceived it as a threat, and communication involves the sender and receiver of a message, so at the very minimum, the intent of the communication did not reach the receiver as intended. I've had a similar history of what i would also characterize as threatening language from several editors including Jytdog in the past months. I don't find it helpful. I find it, to the contrary, to be unfriendly and to create a hostile environment. I think that principles and practices can be explained in a positive way, to show an explain how certain ways of editing can be helpful and constructive here, and others are not. I try to do that as well. I try to encourage good dialogue and general civility. I don't think the contentious nature of dialogue on many talk pages is necessary. SageRad (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Doc, you present a disturbing diff that confirms that a serious problem exists with Jtdog's editing behavior. Jtdog's attempt to squelch this Rfc as seen above troubles me, the denial and then retraction in the "Glyphosate" section above that they had never claimed glyphosate was not a herbicide, and the edits made by Jtdog at Prokaryotes' Talk page in the past few days reinforce that. SageRad, I agree that Jtdog uses rhetorical threats that are designed to intimidate yet be plausibly deniable, so much so that I asked him some time back to stay off my Talk page. I have also sought for some time to avoid Jtdog altogether. My patience is now exhausted per WP:BULLY. It's time for some accountability and a discussion of sanctions. Jus  da  fax   15:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jusdafax, I make mistakes sometimes and acknowledge them when I do. As an experienced wikipedian I look for you to be tamping down dramah, not ramping it up.  If you cannot see the swarming and aggressive editing going on here in the past few days, I don't know what to tell you.  But it may finally bring this suite of articles to arbcom.  We have avoided wasting the community's time with that to date, as editors have shown reasonable self-restraint. That seems to be going out the window at this time. I am hoping this bit of storm will pass, however.  But again, I look for experienced editors to be tamping down dramah. If you want to open an ANI which would have to be the first step, knock yourself out. I am thinking of doing so, but am hoping we can work things out here and on user talk pages as needed, and get there through reasonable discussion.  Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your reply to my expressed concerns is a masterpiece. On one hand you speak with the calm voice of reason while at the same time mentioning ANI and even ArbCom. So be it. I'm putting you on formal notice to stop the type of bullying that includes attempts to quash this Rfc, above, and the abusive "warnings" you dispense, including the job you and Kingofaces have done on Prokaryotes' talk page. That stops now. I am warning you with the strongest possible intent. Jus  da  fax   21:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support with reservation. I hear Jytdog when he says that the Genetically modified food controversies should lead the Controversies section of this article, but on the other hand, i think it matters not where we grow first. What matters is to grow -- to grow more mature, more complete, more measured, more balanced. I think that the labeling of the Organic Consumers Association and the other groups as "advocacy groups" is accurate but uncalled for in this text. They may be advocacy groups, but calling that out in the text seems tendentious to me, as if when we mention Monsanto, we said "the for-profit company who has deceived the public in the past, Monsanto..." It seems to be a loaded epitaph, in other words. As to the inclusion of the IARC monograph summary, it may be WP:UNDUE here in terms of level of coverage in this article, but may be more reasonably integrated as part of the Genetically modified food controversies article, and if it makes it into the lede of that article, then it would be suitable in terms of weight here in the Controversies section of this article. Indeed, i do concur with Jytdog on the recommendation to slow down. Let us frame the relevant questions, and then make the edits after discussing. Let us all be here in dialogue with integrity. SageRad (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reject. It belongs in Genetically modified food controversies (and Glyphosate). This article is about food. Lfstevens (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The current article version mentions food labels, this article too http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660 (based on the WHO find). I too think that the mentioned articles are the main articles, but recent developments as we do with other data (AAAS directors board opinion) should be part of the article, especially when it comes from an authority such as WHO:prokaryotes (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion. This article is on GM food, so going into glyphosate potentially being carcinogenic is a WP:COATRACK and hence undue weight. We've already got the content in the glyphosate article where it belongs until we get the actual report to look over. I still cannot see why there is now such a rush by certain editors to push more advocacy into these articles. I agree that this RfC is extremely premature considering the content was just inserted only a few hours ago with an almost immediate RfC with no discussion about the specific edit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion GMO foods and glyphosate are intricately related, and this finding has been big news - as JusDaFax notes, mention of it here is long overdue. Content can be discussed in greater detail in the daughter article (GMO Controversies).   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The article mentions in the lead that GMO foods are not any more riskier than non GMO. But a total picture of risk cant be shown without the risk from the pesticide that is used for GMO plants. It comes from one of the highest rated sources we have, the WHO . While a long section may not be appropriate, a few sentence or a small paragraph can be included in the article and a sentence in the lede, once in the article, is appropriate. AlbinoFerret  03:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say a paragraph at the very least is required for balance. The arguments against inclusion are looking increasingly strained. Jus  da  fax   04:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A small paragraph sounds about right. The risks of GMO food cant be separated from the pesticide that they use when it is found that it is probably a carcinogen. There is no safe level of a carcinogen to my knowledge. AlbinoFerret  05:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The WHO source has indicated briefly that the potential carcinogenicity is at worker level exposure, not in consuming the food itself. We'll know more on those details when the actual report comes out, which is why the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DEADLINE are being mentioned here so much. Additionally, there is no "safe" level of anything. Water is technically a carcinogen, so it's all a matter of relative risk. We don't know if the carcinogenicity is equivalent to say 1 minute out in the sun or 12 hours a day for your whole life. Again, we'll find out more later, but that's for the scope of other articles such as glyphosate specifically with the information we currently have. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I linked directly to a WHO document above, not a news story. You cant separate GMO food, from the pesticide that is the main reason GMO's are used. There is still a risk. A mention of the available information can be included WP:DEADLINENOW and WP:NOTPAPER. AlbinoFerret  05:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I was commenting directly on that link. By saying there is a risk from the food perspective, that is WP:OR at this time as explained above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is still a risk even if its to exposure during the farming and harvesting of it. This article is titled "Genetically modified food" not "Genetically modified food when eaten". AlbinoFerret  06:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is original research on your part again as described above. Please stick to sources and discussion of content and sources. As for article scope, it sounds like you're looking for Genetically modified crops. That article is more about the crops themselves and how they are grown, while this article is about them after they are harvested and switch from crop to food product. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The History and Process section cover food production and lab development. Herbicide is mentioned 5 times, and Glyphosate is mentioned 4 times in the article. Hence, this article is not only about the foods, but also about the growing of foods. prokaryotes (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here again I agree with Prokaryotes and AlbinoFerret and support their statements. Jus  da  fax   13:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion per arguments made above by those who have called for supporting inclusion. David Tornheim (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion. This is an article about general issues about genetically modified foods as a whole. It is more appropriate for glyphosphate or the more specialized genetically modified food controversies. It is not appropriate and WP:UNDUE to discuss all level of s controversies of specific GMOs here, as a proper, duely weighted, discussion would take up a disproportionate area of this article. Put another way, if we are to discuss the WHO report, we would also have to discuss every other major study on glyphosophate for due weight as well, as well as every other major report of every other controversy because to include the one WHO report here without including the others would be an attempt to highlight just one side of one small part of the GM food issue.  Yobol (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion. To cram in material on every topic that is tangentially related to any aspect of an article, when that topic has its own article, is characteristic of novices and is categorically unencyclopaedic. For references to such topics we have a facility called linking (which in this case would be entirely appropriate and informationally adequate wherever glyphosate tolerance is mentioned in this article). This article is about Genetically modified food; Genetically modified food controversies and Glyphosate are separate and different topics. Otherwise, why stop here at the glyphosate controversy? Put in a section on glyphosate, its chemical structure, history, and pharmacology, in fact generally duplicating the glyphosate article; add a section on WHO and another one on cancer. Surely everyone reading an article on Genetically modified food will be far too impatient to see data on those topics, to be willing to click on a link? And maintenance of all the articles that contain duplicated data will be no problem at all every time there are changes or new material, right? JonRichfield (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the article has a controversy section, it seems odd to not mention the WHO study. The thing is that the current controversy section and the new content overlap, per secondary sources. Hence, readers will just wonder why we don't mention it here. prokaryotes (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as this article is articulate and is suitably and logically linked there is nothing in the least odd about not wandering off into externalities such as WHO studies concerning controversies (which you will note, are dealt with in Genetically modified food controversies as opposed to matters concerning Genetically modified food), nor what you imagine readers might wonder about. Such concerns have nothing to do with the topic of the inclusion of material that patently belongs in Genetically modified food controversies, a coherent article that is clearly, adequately, explicitly, and even conveniently, linked at the head of the current section. The rest of that section seems to me to be fairly well constructed to give some perspective of the sorts of controversy to be expected, and where to find more information, such as at the linked article in question (which is precisely why that linked article exists at all, and why it is linked to. Personally I think that section on controversies is already overdoing it a little, but why quibble about details?) A reader who cannot read anything as helpful as that is not likely to wonder about what might be included or excluded, nor about much else. If desired, a few more links might be inserted in the section, such as (thumbsuck warning!) contamination of the conventional food supply which would enable readers who wonder about why anyone would want a controversy about "contamination of the conventional food supply" to consult details quickly, conveniently, in context, and in up-to-date form, rather than wondering why we do mention it here in so unencyclopaedic a manner. JonRichfield (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem with this reasoning, as has been noted in detail in earlier recent discussions on this Talk page, is that Genetically modified food controversies is a poorly formed article, a spinoff that fractured this main article, and relocated material that is central to this topic, elsewhere. Much of the controversies article addresses non-controversial aspects of GM food, and serves as a rebuttal to vaguely stated controversies. An argument was made that, now that a GM food controversies article exists, we are bound by WP:SUMMARY to only edit certain topics there, then only reflect them here if they percolate to the lead of that article. This isn't efficient or constructive, and is not policy-based, it's an arbitrary and overly restrictrive application of a general editing guideline. Articles should be improved independently, and not bound by the definciencies of other articles. --Tsavage (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You have made it well known that you don't like the current structure, as have a few others. While "we should be free to do whatever we want" may sound attractive to you and a few others, there is a practical need to keep content in WP:SYNC across Wikipedia. You will find few experienced editors who favor chaos with regard to subject matter that spans several articles.  And I remain open to discussing concrete, actionable proposals for different structures to keep content in WP:SYNC, and to define reasonable scopes of articles within suites of related articles to keep them all from bleeding into one another.   Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, please stop injecting your interpretations of an alphabet soup of policies, guidelines and essays, speculating about editors thoughts, and providing unsolicited opinions about how Wikipedia works. It's unwanted and usually hyperbolic and misleading. Which few experienced editors DO favor chaos of any sort? Where have I indicated that I might find "doing whatever we want" attractive? What are you talking about, and to what end? These off-point replies only serve to disrupt the discussion, and you do this continually. At least in replies to me, please comment on content, not editors. --Tsavage (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Tsavage, this is not the only example of this tactic. There is an article Foie gras and a separate article Foie gras controversy.  This is the only example I know where this dichotomy exists for a farm animal - controversy is usually kept within the main article.  Alexbrn, a well known "friend" and tandem editor of Jytdog, is insistent on placing material he apparently does not like on the Foie gras controversy page, or placing information such as bans in a "controversy" section.  The Foie gras controversy page, for whatever reasons, attracts lower grade edits, and as such, appears less encyclopaedic than the main article page. However, there appears little effort to remedy this by those who might be in a position to do so. It is therefore easy to form the opinion that Foie gras is edited by sensible, educated level-headed persons and must be "The Truth", whereas Foie gras controversy is edited by radical, fringe persons and is therefore far less likely to be "The Truth".  Material which might be "uncomfortable" is therefore dumped into the "controversy" article where it is automatically, but mistakenly, viewed as dubious.  Subtle - but effective. DrChrissy (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * DrChrissy, please stop abusing the article talk page. This is not the place for personal vendettas to distract from the goals of an article talk page, which is some of the behavior that led to your current topic ban, not to mention that you are entering into a discussion that's content is squarely within your topic ban. You have no place in this conversation on the WHO study as it is relating to human health. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not abusing the talk page and I resent you posting that. The thread at the moment of my posting was discussing the problems which occur when an article is split into a main article and a controversy article.  My comment therefore, was entirely relevant to the project as a whole.  This talk page is about Genetically modified food and as such, posting here is not in breach of my topic ban. DrChrissy (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To prepare articles dealing with separate topics that refer to certain common elements, only linking them where there are

relevant references, is in every way beneficial, helpful and encyclopaedic. WP articles are not self-contained books covering entire fields, and to permit them to expand into formless monstrosities is destructive and disruptive. If Tsavage doesn't like the form of Genetically modified food controversies, then let him by all means improve it -- by editing Genetically modified food controversies, not Genetically modified food. That sort of thing is what relevance is all about, please note, prokaryotes. JonRichfield (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This RfC doesn't come out of the blue, nor do my comments. Have you familiarized yourself with the discussions here over the last three months? Have you compared this article immediately before and after Genetically modified food controversies was created? Have you read both articles in their current state? There are fundamental problems with how content is distributed across the two articles. As several editors recently noted, sections like "Public Perception" and "Health and Safety" naturally belong in this article, not hidden in a long and rambling Controversies page that at times goes on for multiple paragraphs without mentioning controversy. The Controversies article essentially discusses almost everything about GM food, while this article is left with context-less molecular diagrams, tedious descriptions of things like how soy flour is made, and a contentious scientific consensus statement, propped up by 18 citations, and repeated twice. Your comments don't indicate that you are aware of any of this. --Tsavage (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tsavage, the effort of caring less about the history of the RFC would unreasonably strain my capacity. No matter how many times the advocacy has been repeated, remasticated, or regurgitated, it remains nonsensical to put material into inappropriate articles. An article about food is about food, whether it be Foie gras or GMF or Fatback. An article about controversy is about controversy, whether the controversy is about food or not, and whether the article is to your taste or not. If you think Genetically modified food controversies is a lousy article, stop posturing and fix it, instead of messing up other articles as well or instead. There is no way on Earth, given the existence of the controversies article, that "Public Perception" and "Health and Safety" belong here instead of there. If you think they are hidden there, why not fix that uncontroversially instead of wasting a lot of time here? JonRichfield (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to have an extraordinary ability to determine what is controversial and what is simply factual information, without need for actually consulting the material. If we decide that GM food as a topic is generally controversial, which is not unreasonable, then by your reasoning, the entire article is a controversies article, and all information should be included there.

This, it turns out, is in good measure what has happened. We have the "controversial" aspects of Public Perception, Health, Economy, and so forth in one place, with no information on those topics, controversial or otherwise, in the main article for the subject. In the case of Regulation, we do seem to have recognized the concept that a subject area can be in two places at once, yet when we argue that, for example, "Health and Safety" is a logical section that readers would expect to find here, and not have to ferret out from a Controversies article, that is met with boondoggling resistance. Oddly, Detection is apparently not controverisal, and we can learn that, "Testing on GMOs in food and feed is routinely done using molecular techniques such as PCR and bioinformatics," before heading off to Detection of genetically modified organisms for more.

This only begins to describe the larger problem. Hopefully, your abilities to discern from afar extend to the differences between GM food and Genetically modified crops, part of the overall fragmentation of GM articles into a web of subtopics and side topics. So if we want an easily accessible table of available GM foods - y'know, apples, corn, potatoes,... - we have to go to the Crops article; here in Foods, similar information is mixed in with overly detailed descriptions of animal feed and textured soy protein.

The web of articles is so complicated, sections as like as not point to two or more main articles, and multiple articles have links to the same article, in one size fits all fashion, like having Regulation sections point to Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms and Regulation of genetic engineering. The logic behind this approach is clear, but the application leaves much to be desired, which is why editors are trying to improve it.

Given this unfortunately user-unfriendly situation, it is all the more important in this particularly confused set-up to have at least the highest level articles, like Genetically modified food, be reasonably self-contained, so readers are not sent on an inefficient, possibly maddening and unsuccessful, fact hunt through the GM article web. That is why all of the main subjects associated with GM food should be covered to a reasonable degree directly in the article about GM food. --Tsavage (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Tsavage thank you for your generosity with your evaluations and revelations. I am happy to inform you that I have nothing to add to what I have said, explained, and reexplained. Sadly, I am disappointed to observe that you in turn were unable to find anything to add. And I am busy. JonRichfield (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I guess you did what you could, and what more could we ask of anyone? --Tsavage (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * See also WP:POVFORK   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment What is so difficult to understand about the concept of relevance of material to the topic, especially when other, linked, topics deal explicitly with that material? We have an article on (remember, anyone?) Genetically modified food. If that were the only article concerning the field, then it could go into sordid detail about its pharmacology, both therapeutic and toxicological, its politics, whether fiscal, nutritional, or commercial, its propaganda, both denigratory and religious, and how to spell the names and disorders of the proponents and opponents. As it happens however, we do have articles on every topic any normal committee could dream up, easily searched and linked in context. To include their content in the current article then reduces to self-indulgent frothing about personal concerns. Suppose for example GMO food product X (say farmed green salmon) is Glyposate-resistant? OK if we are talking about product X. But then we should explain what glyphosate is, in case the reader doesn't know, and doesn't realise that he cannot rely on getting his daily dose by eating green salmon? So we must include an article on the chemical nature and metabolic benefits, because we have legitimately mentioned glyphosate? Get real! We have a new facility in WP; it is called linking! If we mention Glyphosate in the context of GMO foods, then we do not mention details that are covered in the linked material, any more than we describe ploughs and milling in the article on bread, even if we find a legitimate need to link to those topics. We have two main classes of participants here: those with the religious compulsion to drag anything they feel strongly about into every topic that they can cram it into, (you have no idea who you are, do you?) and those who believe that it matters to the encyclopaedic nature of WP that every article should be coherent in itself and that wherever it mentions a concept that could be taken in context as understood by the cognoscenti, but that might well demand study and explanation by those unfamiliar with the field, that suitable aids should be employed to empower them to find what they need to know and to do so conveniently and expeditiously in articles that deal with those concepts comprehensively and in context. Such aids are known as links for example. I am new here, but in this controversy so far it already is pathetic to see the juvenile to cram in every possible hot button where there is no matching buttonhole. I have seen better-constructed primary school essays. JonRichfield (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Jon. I'm not sure that phrases such as "juvenile compulsion" will help matters. DrChrissy (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood DrChrissy; possibly it would have been adequate in the context to leave it at: "...in this controversy so far it already is pathetic to see the compulsion to cram in every possible hot button where there is no matching buttonhole. I have seen better-constructed primary school essays" and let the reader infer the nature of the apparent compulsion and assess its effect on the quality of the article, which is supposed to be informative rather than exhortational. JonRichfield (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Usually only that which can be proven is admissible in an RfC - editors' motivations are not included in that category unless they've been publicly expressed. As for linking, a review of WP:LINKSTYLE is in order, particularly:
 * Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.
 * Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.
 * The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Proven" is a loose term in context petrarchan47, it does not here equate to Aristotelean syllogism; nor are my remarks on compulsion and hot buttons aimed at "proving" anything; they are the natural interpretation of my first reading of the foregoing spit-fight. You might compare them favourably to the unnecessarily wounding application of the term "rhetoric" to my constructive and corrective assessment; in my youth I might have found it ill-advised to characterise the remarks of my primary school teachers in their assessments of my work as rhetoric; in this discussion I would have considered application of the term as merely too high-flown for the capacity of the source, and no doubt kindly intended. You in turn will be interested to note however, that supplying adequate links to technical terms in all articles is not the same as "unnecessarily making a reader chase links"; in an article of this nature, not only is it entirely reasonable to expect that a reader who has read thus far could infer the meaning of Genetically modified food controversies and that Glyphosate is a substance of which the role is at issue, and it is equally reasonable to assume that such readers might be able to decide for themselves whether they either need to or want to follow the links without having out-of-context views thrust in their faces and breaking the thread of the text. To explain every link "with very few words", whether desired or not, not only would be distracting but patronising; very bad practice on every level. There is more to linking than explanation of "highly technical terms"; there is amplification of context and connections. For instance, Genetically modified food controversies as a reference is not in context obscure at all, but to discuss its content and explain it in this article would be out of place, and accordingly unhelpful for most readers. IOW, bad writing as well as bad practice. "As far as possible not forcing a reader to use that link to understand the sentence" is thoroughly meritorious, but as it is common cause, it is hardly appropriate to mention it here. For example, none of the examples of links mentioned here are anywhere near to violating that principle. The exhortation to use text that makes make sense to readers who cannot follow links is praiseworthy, but only within appropriate limits; WP is an interactive medium -- it is no part of WP principles to distort or devalue content by writing unnaturally at the cost of those who can use links, to indulge users who print print articles or read offline, or republish Wikipedia content without bothering to allow for links in the text. Such users could at the least be required to look up the linked text themselves and to paraphrase it to suit their needs -- to take that logic any further would force us to drop the use of links and redirection entirely; two of our most powerful tools, both to authors and readers. JonRichfield (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent points, Petrarchan47, and I thank you for making them. I agree with DrChrissy that Jon's rhetoric, using a term like "pathetic," is unhelpful. Jus  da  fax   03:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User talk:JonRichfield It is usually considered bad form to edit your own edits after others have commented on them.  If you do, these should be marked up according to WP:REDACT.  In this diff you deleted the word "compulsive" whereas you would have been better to strikethrough, e.g. compulsive .  The reason for this is quite obvious.  Your sentence is now nonsense, and other editors can not see what I was commenting on. DrChrissy (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also like to thank Petrarchan47 for that link to links! We should sometimes have more respect for the limited understanding of specialised terminology that the general readership has and how links can be helpful, but need to be used carefully. For me, the term "conspecific" is a perfectly acceptable way to condense "a member of the same species".  It took many reverts/editing of my edits including "conspecific" for me to realise that I misjudged the general readership's understanding of the term and their lack of desire to chase the link.  Now I usually write "...[conspecific] (a member of the same species)" the first time it appears in the article. DrChrissy (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * JonRichfield, you either ignore the content discussed here, or did not read it, when you state, "out-of-context views". We have experts who call for food labels, based on the glyphosate WHO results, and secondary sources reporting on it. The content is precisely on topic. Even without that discussion, food production and glyphosate tolerance are facts that are part of the article, hence why we can have 1 sentence in the controversy section, otherwise the section is not complete.prokaryotes (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * prokaryotes try to understand the concept of context; it is not a matter of what pushes your personal views or presses your personal buttons, nor even what the topic discussed here is all about when that topic material is being forced in by people who refuse to keep it in the context of the article specifically addressing it. Context is rather how material fits into the article. Here it does not fit, as long as there is a different article that does indeed fit. This article is about Genetically_modified_food. It is not about Genetically modified food controversies, which please note, is an article with its own content and contexts. Neither the fact that your designated authorities, nor whether any authorities called for food labels, is relevant to this article. Just because the content you are pushing mentions food does not mean that it is on topic at all; that is what context is all about. Try again. Harder. I see that some participants here say "...Genetically modified food controversies is a poorly formed article, a spinoff that fractured this main article...". But that is irrelevant, whether true or not. The place to fix it is in the poorly formed article, not this one. JonRichfield (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article contains a controversy section ... Hence, you argument this article is not about controversy is mood.prokaryotes (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that the recent rfc partially addressing the content of the controversy section was archived without close. There were many policy-based votes in favor of moving some safety information out of the 'controversy' section. Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 9. I also see that the archive box on this page is misleading, with the most recent link showing '2011-'  and linking to archive 4, when there are multiple archives from the past few months.Dialectric (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article is about genetically modified foods, not genetically modified crops. I have seen no evidence that glyphosate is ever present in the harvested foodstuffs, as sold for consumption. Maproom (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many studies in those regards, i.e. here (61 cites). Though, the point here is more about general findings, which affects both crops and foods. Also see the recent news, Regulators may recommend testing food for glyphosate residues.prokaryotes (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per JonRichfield and Maproom aptly stated. On a side note, this is clearly a WP:MEDRS-related issue, as carcinogens are obviously within its purview. Discussion of glyphosate should remain in said article. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  00:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose because this is an article about the food, not GMO-related controversies. Say the GMO industry was the primary industry abusing animals, I still wouldn't think the animal abuse controversy would belong here, because it's only indirectly related. Criticism about the pesticide used with GMOs is indirect, and thus does not belong on an article about GMO food. --Iamozy (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Iamozy, many GMO's carry a resistant gene, and are marketed together with pesticides. In 2007, glyphosate was the most used herbicide in the United States agricultural sector, with 180 to 185 million pounds (82,000 to 84,000 tonnes) applied. And what do you mean with, Criticism about the pesticide used with GMOs is indirect? prokaryotes (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, but in summary, with the details in Genetically modified food controversies Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . This article is about the food itself, not about the different controversies surrounding it. There is a dedicated article for such content located at Genetically modified food controversies, where all controversies can be described in full detail. -Ex Parte talkundefinedcontribs 02:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of mention of USRTK information
I wonder if this removal is justified. I think the information is relevant and was properly sourced. I think it provided more context to the sociological dimensions of the controversy surrounding the article's subject matter. SageRad (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of improper disclosure in the source or in others, not to mention that it is undue weight as part of talking points by an advocacy group. This specific content isn't even in Kevin Folta, and I suspect it never will be in this fashion as being an invited speaker somewhere and your university receiving a grant don't quite fit into the narrative being portrayed here . Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your points. I still think that the findings and the story that is told by the USRTK FOIA requests may be relevant to this article as context. I wonder what others think, and how we might contextualize it well in this article. SageRad (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note that the content you removed didn't say "improper disclosure". It said that "researchers have accepted funding and travel reimbursements without disclosure" which is true. That may imply impropriety, and in fact i'd agree that the story told is one of impropriety in regard to public trust. It may not be technically in violation of formal rules, but the impropriety of appearing to be independent while working more closely than is publicly known with the industry, that is the import of the story. SageRad (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's not improper disclosure, then it's undue weight here regardless of advocacy stances trying to insert their own narrative trying to insinuate impropriety. WP:COATRACK applies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's a reasonably significant part of the whole issue of controversy surrounding genetically modified foods, which i think it is, then it's neither coatracking nor undue. SageRad (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Controversy: American Academy of Environmental Medicine
Hey everyone! In the controversies section there is a substantial chunk about the position of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. I'm under the impression that AAEM is generally considered a fringe group, opposing water fluoridation, thimerosol, et al. It looks like this has previously been discussed on this talk page [|here] and the material was removed [|here] but may have since snuck back in. I'd advocate the material be removed or rephrased since I think we give the criticism undue weight the way it is currently worded. Happy to discuss.Ajpolino (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that Quackwatch calls into question the validity or reliability of the AAEM does not alter the fact that they are an established entity in the GM food-controversy universe. Because they are a 50-year-old organization calling for a moratorium on GM food, mention of their role in GM food should be included on this page. Therefore, in the opinion of this editor, it should not be removed. Now, if you have specific suggestions on how to rephrase the information, as you advocated, I am all for considering and discussing them. In short, improve it, don't remove it. That's my vote.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that this section is a summary of the main article and therefore going into too much detail will tend to lend undue weight to one somewhat questionable organisation. AIR corn (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Aircorn, where are you getting this idea? Weight is not determined by related articles, or have I missed something?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

GMO salmon
Did anyone else see the news today about the US okaying gmo salmon for consumption? Although the FDA says it is safe to eat, it sees no reason to label it any differently from wild or non-gmo salmon. This looks to be the beginning of a big debate, and I'm wondering if the news warrants mentioning in this article. Thoughts?Kerdooskis (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * GMO Salmon: Here's How Americans Feel About Fish Forbes  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)