Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 11

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 17:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The AE request was closed and the Arbcom request is still open and accepting statements. AlbinoFerret  02:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible new source regarding consensus
An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment I'm not sure what the overall conclusions of this article are but it seems like a good source to use with respect to whether there is a scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. Perhaps someone with access to the full text can shed some light on what the stance this paper takes on the GMO consensus (or lack thereof). Everymorning (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Prof. Krimsky appears to be as much a pundit as an academic. Since the article is behind a paywall, can you fill in some details about his claims? Lfstevens (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

New source
I recently found a study conducted that tests on lab rats that consumed GMOs, and the tumors they developed afterwards. I'm not good at editing Wikipedia pages, so I'll just leave the link here so it can be added to the page.

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/120-a421/

Thanks, 2602:304:CDC0:C1E0:F9FD:3B10:6A22:DA7 (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This study is the subject of Seralini affair, it has been retracted. Everymorning (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Article contains several grammatical, spelling, and referencing errors
I would edit them myself, but this article is locked to me.142.58.132.39 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

An important new source regarding consensus
This article seems sufficiently important to be included in the part on scientific consensus: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/s12302-014-0034-1.pdf

The background of the authors, and the significance of their point, seem to be highly relevant for this discussion.

Note that a related statement by ENSSER, currently mentioned in the Wikipedia article, is from 2013 (while the above article is from 2015). Please include this in the discussion on scientific consensus. For the sake of neutrality, it would also be good to mention that "300 independent researchers", who have signed the statement are not all experts in the field, which undermines the significance of their signatures.

Edit: I have just read in the Archive 10 a previous discussion on this issue. A lack of academic rigor on this issue is striking. The paragraphs I have in mind are the following:

"i read it now. it repeats what ENSSR said already in 2013 and what this  mysteriously unauthored document from Food and Water Watch says, from Sept 2014. The paper is a "discussion" paper - see here  for what that means in the journal; it is an editorial. And per MEDRS that is not a reliable source. I suggest we add this, next to the earlier ENSSER statement. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)"

First, Jytdog, you cannot have inconsistent standards when it comes to what counts as a reliable source. If a peer review journal publishes a text, which has previously only been a sheer statement, as a discussion piece, and you agree in your comments that we should stick to peer reviewed journals as a standard for scientific publications, then this text should indeed be treated as a part of the academic discourse on this issue. Even if the article represents the opinion of a minority of the given scientific community, it is still an important piece of information that should be distinguished from, say, newspaper articles or statements by various political groups. Similarly, it is important for readers finding out about this discussion piece and reading that there are 300 people who have signed the statement to be aware of the fact that the statement has not been signed exclusively by the experts in the domain but by researchers of various disciplines (which then undermines the epistemic significance of this list of signatures). Now if you wish to deem a discussion pience as irrelevant in the given debate, on what grounds do you do so? The only way you could make such an evaluation is by entering the debate itself, which would be an argument at the object level. However, you cannot possibly do that as a Wikipedia writer (and even if you were an expert in the given domain, you would still have to write a reply to the given piece, send it to the given journal and publish it via a peer-reviewing process, rather than express your opinion via editorial Wikipedia choices).

Second, you mention that the given journal is not a reliable source. Could you please provide the reasons why MEDRS is a competent body to decide which peer reviewed journals are reliable and which not? I am very curious to hear a reliable information on this.

Third, why has this whole discussion been dropped and no reference to the above mentioned 2015 article has been added? Note that this is a relevant article for the discussion on the scientific consensus. Even if the opinion belongs to the minority of scientists, it should be mentioned next to the sentence on the opinion of the majority, rather than in the part on public perception of the controversy.

Finally, let's not confuse this controversy with the one on climate change. With regard to the latter, there are numerous studies (such as the one by Oreskes and Conway) on the scientific consensus in the field. In contrast, the references on the consensus on the GMO safety has not been covered by any such larger reference, and instead currently includes even newspaper articles. Renurenurenu (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renurenurenu (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Renurenurenu (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There have been many discussions regarding this issue. Please see archive of talk pages of  Genetically Modified Food.  I will say more on this later if I have time.  --David Tornheim (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The claim of consensus based on inadequate evidence
The first sentence of the section "Health", stating "A broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food" currently mixes up a whole variety of articles, many of which do not represent reliable evidence for consensus in the given domain. Moreover, some quotes do not support this sentence at all. Let's analyze them one by one:

Reference 1. The statement of the AAAS is not a scientific study, nor has it been published in a scientific journal. For the very same reason Jytdog previously rejected publishing the statement by ENSSER. Please remove this reference to the part on public perception.

Reference 2. The second references states that "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies". This is not the same as the sentence that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food. The statement refers to the GM methods in general, without going into any particular food item on the market.

Reference 3 seems fine.

Reference 4: again a report and not a scientific study. Has it been peer-reviewed? If not, it should be removed as an evidence for the above sentence.

Reference 88: not a scientific article, but a sheer popular science (i.e. newspaper) article. As such it has absolutely no place as an evidence for this statement. Move to the section on the public perception.

Reference 100: again not a scientific article, but a statement. No peer-reviewing involved.

Reference 101: I am not sure whether this report has been peer-reviewed. if not, it is again a statement of a public body, and not a scientific study published via a peer-review process.

References under 102 suffer from similar problems like those mentioned above.

Altogether, the majority of the above references show a consensus by various public bodies, but they do not serve as the evidence of the scientific consensus unless these institutions have followed certain procedures comparable to a peer-reviewing process. A consensus can be shown only by means of studies, conducted by the scholars who then publish these studies in academic journals or by academic book publishers. Alternatively, please provide reasons why the above reports or statements should have a comparative treatment and why they are essentially different from e.g. the statement by ENSSER, which, I agree, does not have the same status as a publication in a scientific journal.

I suggest for the sentence to be changed in such a way to reflect that the majority of public institutions maintains that there is a scientific consensus on this issue, though not all of them do so, and then mention these institutions and cite their statements or reports. Renurenurenu (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Renurenurenu (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see archive of talk pages of Genetically Modified Food. I will say more on this later if I have time. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed
"In the United States GMO labeling is not required by the Food and Drug Administration as long as there are no differences in health, environmental safety, and consumer expectations based on the packaging." 1) "no differences in health, environmental safety, consumer expectations based on the packaging." Clarification needed, highly ambiguous.  As is, reads like health and environmental safety are based on packaging.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.66.121 (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of DS and 1RR
Arb has imposed discretionary sanctions and 1RR on all GMO related articles. I notice that Jps has made 2 reverts of the same material. Consider this your notification. I'll post on your talk page as well. Minor4th  16:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you've already been notified. Minor4th  16:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Wisconsin study
I apologize for parachuting in here without studying this article methodically top to bottom and reading the refs, but I wonder what is the connection between the sentence at the bottom of Wisconsin study which says
 * Crops and animals under development express traits aimed at directly increasing yield.[380] The closest to market is salmon that produces an added growth hormone gene that doubles growth rates.[381]

and the rest of the text is? Is it part of the study? Is modified salmon still under development? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
 * After 17 years of review (or maybe "review"), the FDA approved Genetically modified salmon for sale in 2015. Lfstevens (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference to the text: "In May 2003, the US and twelve other countries filed a formal complaint..."
Here's a reference to the text: "In May 2003, the US and twelve other countries filed a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization that the EU was violating international trade agreements, by blocking imports of US farm products through its ban on GM food." --Tikmok (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Public Perception
I undid this revision diff for the following reasons: "Original sentence was better; we can discuss the source on talk page. New language is one author's opinion--not appropriate.". --David Tornheim (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did you replace something from Scientific American from something from a self-published partisan website, stated in Wikipedia's own voice. Looks severely NNPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that there is a better source for the original sentence, which is something that is very commonly argued. The material you added was the opinion of one person who is obviously pro-GMO, who in the same article made the specious argument, "Humans have been genetically modifying foods through selective breeding for more than 10,000 years." Let us look for better RS that supports the original sentence.  --David Tornheim (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the template "better source" needed here. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Skepticism and controversy in Europe
I've enjoyed reading this article, which is well-referenced, and covers the American scene very well. But things are very different in Europe, and the European experience has been glossed over in this article. A lot is made of "objectivity", mentioned twice in the lead section, which is actually a complex epistomological issue. Ethics, the precautionary principle, and policy-making process seem to be issues of more relevance from what I have read elsewhere. Albert Teich has said:


 * "The controversy over genetically modified organisms (GMOs), especially in foods, relates largely to the regulation of technology: How certain must one be to take regulatory action, especially when that action is costly? Guided by the precautionary principle, which holds that 'when an activity threatens harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically,' most European nations assert that GMOs should not be allowed in foods. United States regulators, arguing that there is no persuasive scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful, and citing many benefits, have generally rejected the European position."

-- Albert H. Teich (Editor), Technology and the Future, Wadsworth, 12th edition, 2013.

Is there really "general scientific agreement" about GM food? Also, it is a mistake to characterise activists who take direct action as vandals. -- Johnfos (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You are correct that the article is deeply flawed in covering Europe. Please be bold and make changes to correct those and other problems. This is something that I tried to do back in February 2015 (for example:  here), but a single editor who wrote the material and controlled this and mos of the other major GMO pages prevented any changes to his writing as I described here.  That editor is now banned from this and other GMO articles.
 * Please note that if there is any opposition to your changes, do not edit war; there is a 1RR restriction as Discretionary Sanctions on this article per this this recently closed ArbCom decision. I suggest you skim the lengthy case if you have time to see how this article came to be as it now is.
 * -David Tornheim (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've raised this in the past also, the precautionary principle, Cartagena Protocol, Codex Alimentarius, in the context of EU v US regulatory mechanisms and safety testing regimes. Needs addressing here and elsewhere. Semitransgenic  talk. 23:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've now added a "missing information" tag at the top of the article, as there is much skepticism and controversy in Europe which is not adequately covered, and there is too much focus on the USA, making the article unbalanced. Johnfos (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Skepticism and controversy in Europe
I've enjoyed reading this article, which is well-referenced, and covers the American scene very well. But things are very different in Europe, and the European experience has been glossed over in this article. A lot is made of "objectivity", mentioned twice in the lead section, which is actually a complex epistomological issue. Ethics, the precautionary principle, and policy-making process seem to be issues of more relevance from what I have read elsewhere. Albert Teich has said:


 * "The controversy over genetically modified organisms (GMOs), especially in foods, relates largely to the regulation of technology: How certain must one be to take regulatory action, especially when that action is costly? Guided by the precautionary principle, which holds that 'when an activity threatens harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically,' most European nations assert that GMOs should not be allowed in foods. United States regulators, arguing that there is no persuasive scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful, and citing many benefits, have generally rejected the European position."

-- Albert H. Teich (Editor), Technology and the Future, Wadsworth, 12th edition, 2013.

Is there really "general scientific agreement" about GM food? Also, it is a mistake to characterise activists who take direct action as vandals. -- Johnfos (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You are correct that the article is deeply flawed in covering Europe. Please be bold and make changes to correct those and other problems. This is something that I tried to do back in February 2015 (for example:  here), but a single editor who wrote the material and controlled this and mos of the other major GMO pages prevented any changes to his writing as I described here.  That editor is now banned from this and other GMO articles.
 * Please note that if there is any opposition to your changes, do not edit war; there is a 1RR restriction as Discretionary Sanctions on this article per this this recently closed ArbCom decision. I suggest you skim the lengthy case if you have time to see how this article came to be as it now is.
 * -David Tornheim (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've raised this in the past also, the precautionary principle, Cartagena Protocol, Codex Alimentarius, in the context of EU v US regulatory mechanisms and safety testing regimes. Needs addressing here and elsewhere. Semitransgenic  talk. 23:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've now added a "missing information" tag at the top of the article, as there is much skepticism and controversy in Europe which is not adequately covered, and there is too much focus on the USA, making the article unbalanced. Johnfos (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Scientific consensus?
Most GMF articles on WP, like this one, contain the statement that: there is "general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from these crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food". Often this is in the first few paragraphs of the article. But is this "scientific consensus" statement really true, or is the situation more complex?

The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility WP article says this: "In 2015 ENSSER published a study assessment in regards to GMO safety, and concluded 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". -- Johnfos (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the GMO Talk page archives, this has been discussed ad nauseam. Alexbrn (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but if discussion has stalled and questions are still being raised, perhaps help is to be found in the social science literature on analysing scientific controversies. See, for example, the recent book The Controversy Manual by Brian Martin (professor), which is freely available online, and in part discusses GMOs. Johnfos (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it stalled, but resulted in the mother of all RfCs. The current article(s) reflect the hard-fought consensus, I believe. Alexbrn (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Similar to climate change denial, opposition to the scientific consensus falls under WP:FRINGE. We generally mention the a fringe viewpoint when it comes prominent in controversies as outlined in the guideline also being careful not to give that viewpoint undue weight. At this point though, there isn't anything that has changed the scientific consensus in the literature. If it does, we'll see it from WP:MEDRS sources such as international organizations on par with the WHO as opposed to advocacy groups like ENSSER. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Johnfos, one way that I find useful to think about the source material is that there is a significant gap between the actual scientific literature, and the lay literature. Unquestionably, there are widespread perceptions in the lay public of problems with GM food. But if one examines the source material that comes from mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific publications (and ENSSER tends to be more like an advocacy group than an actual scientific one), there really is this consensus, even though there is no corresponding consensus in the lay public. Also, in addition to that epic RfC that Alexbrn mentioned, there has recently been an epic ArbCom case, that lead in part to the edit notice that appears every time you access the editing screen on this page and talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The consensus related to GMO foods is substantially weaker, and narrower, than that related to climate change. The constant comparisons to climate change and calls to WP:FRINGE are not constructive. The issues are unrelated. The science is unrelated. The only purpose these references seem to serve is as an attempt to discredit the organizations and scientists who hold the minority view, and drive off editors who make good faith attempts to reflect a significant minority viewpoint. Dialectric (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ^I agree. The definition for "Fringe" has long talked about about examples like the "flat earth" ([ https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Fringe_theories]). I would really like to see someone come up with a scientific paper in any major journal that defends the "flat earth" theory.  Clearly there are numerous articles, including review articles in the scientific literature that include statements that there is not adequate study of GMO food, or the WHO's statement that "it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods".  Quite different than the "flat earth" that is the prime example used for "fringe".  --David Tornheim (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ouch! Speaking only for myself, I have no interest in ever driving off good faith editors. As I see it, GM skepticism is a majority viewpoint in the general public, but a minority viewpoint among scientists who have examined the issue. And as I see it, the problems in editing arise when editors try to present scientific minority views as having greater weight than what the source material supports. And purely within the scientific source material, it really is an extreme minority view, and arguably an even weaker one than climate denial. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As the OP points out, it is more complex than saying there's a general scientific consensus of GMO food safety. While the evidence may be lacking that the actual GMO foods are harmful, there are a number of studies that have concluded that there are health risks associated with exposure to the chemical formulations used with GMO crops. That's in no way a fringe view. And there are no long term studies on human health effects.  I think it's misleading to say there is general scientific consensus that GMO foods are safe. <b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And BTw the outcome of the mother of all RfC's was no consensus that the 18 sources cited support the sentence "there is general scientific consensus that GMO foods on the market are as safe as conventional foods." <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Johnfos: Discussion of the issue, still not settled, cooled down in the wake of the ArbCom case, where several editors outspoken on all sides of the GM topic, including the (measurably) most vocal supporter of the strongly worded "scientific consensus" statement, were blocked from this subject area for minimum a year. Discretionary sanctions now imposed on GM articles may also contribute to keeping discussion more measured, less brisk.


 * The scientific consensus question should come down to sources, giving particular consideration to the directly relevant Academic consensus (WP:RS/AC) and Synthesis of published material (WP:SYNTH).


 * This linked comment, which I posted last Sep in Talk:Genetically modified food, squarely addresses our use of scientific consensus/agreement and our general framing of GM issues as controversies, by referring strictly to the sources presented: Additional high-quality sources for GMO articles that provide a balanced view. It's probably worth a read. --Tsavage (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I should add some things to what I said above. Yes, it's true that the RfC ended in no consensus, a result that should not be interpreted as supporting either "side", but one that can be interpreted as demonstrating that the question has already been discussed an awful lot. And while there are genuine, scientifically valid concerns about health effects of agricultural chemicals associated with GM crops, there are also such concerns about agricultural chemicals associated with conventional crops. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Genetically modified food controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141129085632/http://faculty.apec.umn.edu/kolson/documents/4103_cases/case_4-4.pdf to http://faculty.apec.umn.edu/kolson/documents/4103_cases/case_4-4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 15:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Addition of 3 GMO critics and 1 movie to "See also" Section.
The addition of 3 critics (Ignacio Chapela, Samuel Epstein, Jeffrey M. Smith) and 1 movie (The Future of Food) critical of GMO's was removed from the "see also" section of the article with the edit note "Smith already linked and no reason given for adding the others." I see no harm in putting Smith in the "see also" category (even if he is mentioned in the article), since he is one of the most vocal American critics of GMO's. The movie is obviously about GMO food and looking at our articles on the other individuals it is easy to see they are GMO critics. So I really do not see any problem with the edit, which I restored. I understand the industry does not want the critics' voices, but I think our article is supposed to be about the "controversy" not just the industry perspective. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SEEALSO. Also please reread WP:AGF. If there is a consensus for going against the MOS guideline, gain it here, otherwise do not include it. --Malerooster (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In particular see "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.". In a well developed article the "see also" section is for articles that don't really fit in the article but are related. For example a good see also for this article might be Stem cell controversy or Ethics of cloning. In less developed articles the section is sometimes used as a placeholder for useful links until they can be incorporated into the article. That is why most featured articles have short see also's.
 * If a GMO critic is notable enough then they can be mentioned in the article. Smith already is and would need a very good reason to be also linked in see also. If Chapela is deemed important enough he could easily be attributed and linked to his paper. Epsteins article doesn't even mention GM food.  AIR corn  (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have any strong views about Smith's inclusion in the See also section. Epstein's WP article lists an GM Food e-book he wrote: Epstein, S. S. (2001), Got (Genetically Engineered) Milk! The Monsanto Milk Wars Handbook (E-book), New York: Seven Stories Press. Johnfos (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Future of food, according to its wikipedia article, is a one sided documentary on the supposed dangers of GM food. I don't think this is a suitable see also either. AIR corn (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please provide WP:PAG for why a one-sided documentary would be an inappropriate "see also" for a topic that is controversial. A look at the "See also" section here suggests there is nothing wrong with a one-sided item in the "See also" section of a controversy. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a see also, so it becomes a matter of editorial judgement. Just give your reasons for why it is a good link for a see also. AIR corn (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is relevant, because it is documentary with plenty of notability having to do with the controversy around GMO food, farming, patents and criticism of it, like Food, Inc.. Even if it is one-sided, I do not see why that would be a problem, unless we are committed to only telling one side and not another.  I am not sure why we should deny access to reader of material that is clearly relevant.  If you feel too many of the "see also" entries are critical of GMO's, that could be easily remedied by balancing it with material that is pro-GMO, such as referring to Jon Entine, Pamela Ronald, Monsanto, Bayer, Bernie_May_(geneticist), Nina Fedoroff, Nancy Marie Brown and Michael Taylor.  Some books in this list are clearly pro-GMO and mention some of the authors I put in the foregoing list.  That would be NPOV, allowing the reader to review the material available on the controversy from different perspectives and resources rather than hindering the reader by needlessly leaving it out.  --09:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the aim should be to not add lots of different links. AIR corn (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Chemical Use Section
Thanks for the improvement in the definition of pesticide. I read over the entire section on chemical use. I have not yet spent much time looking at the RS, so I do not know if it represents RS accurately. Assuming it does, it seems to read fairly well and NPOV, if the purpose of the article is an objective description of how GMO use affects chemical use. However, since this is a controversy article, shouldn't that section instead focus primarily on the controversy over the study claiming an increase in insecticide use and not cite 3-4 different individual studies about pesticide use where there is no dispute? Wouldn't just the one meta study be sufficient for the pesticide section, or an additional single summary saying "X studies found a decrease in pesticide use" and provide footnotes for each? (The purpose being so that the reader understands that there is no dispute on the one kind of chemical use compare to the other.) I should also note that having so many individual studies cited seems anathema to MEDRS proponents' repeated claims that we should almost never have individual studies in the articles. Nonetheless, I found the section on pesticides interesting and informative, so I am not proposing to delete it and reference to the individual studies, but I believe it should go somewhere else, like the article in agriculture since there appears no controversy over pesticide use? And then just point to the section of that article? Also, I think the insecticide section should be a subjection of the pesticide section, right? If there is no objection, I might start making some of these changes. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Lfstevens' revision
Thanks for this revision. It looks good with one exception: the deletion of the identifying material of Benbrooke's critic "Graham Brookes of PG Economics " to just "Brookes". Just providing a last name makes it seem like we have introduced Brookes previously. I suggest either we identify him by full name and possible affiliation of where he worked when he made the comment (or his past expertise in the field), or simply say "One paper", "One report", "One critic", or one "One report published in GM Crops & Food", etc. Then the reader can always go the ref. to find out more. Either way is fine with me, but not just the last name which is confusing. Also, I just noticed the second referenced is to a Jon Entine article, which I think should be deleted for reasons already discussed ad nauseum about that writer. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed this. Using last names is pretty common, but in the end is best handled via a convention. I'll see if the rest of the article suggests. No problem removing the Entine cite. He seems to be Smith's opposite number. Lfstevens (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

GMO conspiracy theories
Perhaps this content would be better utilised here rather then having yet another GMO related article? Semitransgenic talk. 23:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It sound like you are suggesting a merge. I'm ambivalent about it. There does seem to be some risk of a WP:POV fork. On the other hand, it's such a new page that I'm interested in seeing how it shapes up, in terms of whether it ends up having enough good quality content to justify a standalone page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It occurred to me that a note about this discussion should be left at the other article's talk page, so I left one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree to move. TFD (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I used the lead from that article to add a section here, so that if the content is to be merged there is a place it can be incorporated. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 02:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Many of the sources of the material used are not RS--blogs and use of material from Pro-GMO advocate Jon Entine. I removed that material.  The source article is filled with blogs/non-RS.  --David Tornheim (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion: proposal to change "scientific agreement" to "scientific consensus" on GMO food safety in all GMO articles
A fresh discussion has started with a proposal for revision to this sentence:


 * There is general scientific agreement that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis. [citations omitted]

to:


 * There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.[citations omitted]

The discussion is taking place here at   at the talk page of Genetically modified crops. Please comment there. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

sentence about IAASTD Report
Regarding this sentence:


 * The potential for genetically modified food to help developing nations was recognised by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, but as of 2008 they had found no conclusive evidence of a solution.[370]

I do not see that as an accurate representation of what the report discusses. First, the report is not dedicated to eliminating hunger alone, which is what the paragraph speaks to. The report is clearly about multiple goals: "the reduction of hunger and poverty, the improvement of rural livelihoods and human health, and facilitating equitable, socially, environmentally and economically sustainable development." (from the Preface). From what I have read in the report about Biotechnology (summary page 8 and a fair amount starting at page 40), the report tries to address all of these issues simultaneously, and clearly gives no ringing endorsement to "the potential of gmo food" to say, eliminate world hunger. The effect on hunger is discussed but never without reference to the other issues. The second part of the sentence is closer to what the report said, but that is not accurate either, because the report addresses all the themes simultaneously not a single "solution", making more complex statements such as these:


 * Therefore, it is critical for policy makers to holistically consider biotechnology impacts beyond productivity and yield goals, and address wider societal issues of capacity building, social equity and local infrastructure....




 * Biotechnology in general, and modern biotechnology in particular, creates both costs and benefits... depending on how it is incorporated into societies and ecosystems and whether there is the will to fairly share benefits as well as costs. For example, the use of modern plant varieties has raised grain yields in most parts of the world, but sometimes at the expense of reducing biodiversity or access to traditional foods.... Neither costs nor benefits are currently perceived to be equally shared, with the poor tending to receive more of the costs than the benefits....

Therefore, I intend to revise the cumbersome sentence to more accurately state what is actually in the Report. It is clearly a mixed bag. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I could suggest something along the lines of: "The potential for genetically modified food to increase the food supply in developing nations was recognised by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, but as of 2008 they had found no conclusive evidence of a single solution." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that? Please provide a quote from the Report . --David Tornheim (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You said: "I intend to revise the cumbersome sentence to more accurately state what is actually in the Report." You did not, however, say what the actual wording would be. I made a suggestion, based upon what you said above. I trust I don't have to provide you with a quote of what you said. Please feel free to suggest a different wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh. So are you basing your proposed sentence on what I quoted from the Report? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm really puzzled by the tone of your questions to me, because you sound adversarial, and I was only trying to be helpful. I skimmed the Executive Summary of the source, but did not read it in its entirety. I looked at the existing sentence as you quote it above, and tried to correct it for the issues that you seem to be raising. I had two intentions, that I think were consistent with what you had said: to indicate that the "help" was not help in general, but rather in terms of the food supply, and to indicate that the source does not present the issue as amenable simply to a single solution. OK? If you don't like it, just suggest an alternative. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

GMO SOY
I originally added this: A 2015 systems biology study led by Shiva Ayyadurai discovered that Roundup Ready Soy, the genetically moified version of soybean plants, had less capacity to detoxify formaldehyde as compared to non-GMO soy. The study also found that glutathione, which is an important anti-oxidant necessary for cellular detoxification, was being disrupted and depleted in GMO soy. .

However, editor Smartse had referred to the EFSA article, so I would like to update, incorporating Smartse's observation, as follows: The European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA) approved Monsanto's Roundup Ready GMO soy in Europe as well as has denied any health concerns to humans from Monsanto's herbicide, Glyphosate. EFSA's support for Monsanto products has been contentious. A 2015 systems biology study led by MIT-trained systems biologist Shiva Ayyadurai, published in four peer-reviewed papers, which amalgamated the laboratory results of over 6000 experiments, done in 184 laboratories across 23 countries, discovered that Monsanto's Roundup Ready GMO soy, the genetically moified version of soybean plants, had less capacity to detoxify formaldehyde as compared to non-GMO soy. The study also found that glutathione, which is an important anti-oxidant necessary for cellular detoxification, was being disrupted and depleted in GMO soy. EFSA responded with a report refuting the study and restating its position that GMO soy has no safety concerns.

If there is no objection, I might start making some of these changes. Thank you. --User:Robsweet1975 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * My reaction is that you should go slow on this, and I am leaning towards opposing the inclusion of this material. It is very WP:PEACOCKy with respect to Ayyadurai, and it seems to give WP:UNDUE weight to primary studies. Given that the findings were refuted, and given that there does not seem to have been any replication of results by other investigators, and given also that the findings concern somewhat esoteric aspects of plant biochemistry without demonstrated effects on human health after eating the GM soy, I think that we need to be cautious about giving this much prominence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not a good idea to use multiple sources for one paragraph. TFD (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm strongly opposed to including the version suggested above because much of it is inaccurate because, as has been noted, the original study was completely theoretical and hasn't actually shown that GM soy has more formaldehyde and less gluthianone than conventional soy. The EFSA report completely rubbishes the science and consequently we shouldn't be presenting it as though it is accurate. Unlike the Seralini affair this hasn't attracted a great deal of mainstream coverage and consequently there aren't enough sources to even merit a mention of the study and the problems associated with it. In the grand scheme of GM controversies, this is a flash in the pan. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll just follow up by saying that I find what SmartSE said very convincing, and I am now solidly in opposition to adding the material. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Word Choice in Indian Controversies Subsection
I was reading through this article today and noticed a word choice that struck me as a bit odd for Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View. Specifically, in the Indian Controversies subsection at the end of the first paragraph, the line that reads:

I'm not sure if this would fall under the category of Neutral Point of View or just a strange word choice for a Wikipedia article, but I can't help but feel that the word "fudging" is out of place with the normal style of language typically used in articles. I am guessing that the word "fudging" is used because the source article uses the word in its title, but I think that replacing "fudging" with something else like "falsifying", "understating, or "under-reporting" would shift the tone of the phrase closer to a neutral point of view.

Please let me know about what you all think would be the appropriate course of action, I am going to go ahead and make the change. I will link the change summary to this, if you feel that this is unnecessary then by all means feel free to revert it and let me know so; I am relatively new to making edits / talk page discussions on Wikipedia and want to run all of this past you guys. SygerrikJenrys (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems that because I have not done the required 10 edits to become autoconfirmed as per Wikipedia:AUTOCONFIRM so I am unable to make this edit. I will browse around some of my bookmarked smaller pages and try to make corrections, in the meantime if anyone supports the change I proposed above please feel free to do so, just let me know. --SygerrikJenrys (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that "fudging" is a bit on the provocative side. I am not sure that Rediff News qualifies as WP:RS.  The source seems more like an opinion piece where the article is making the allegation rather than an expert, and the accused is not interviewed and given an opportunity to respond.  I think it would be reasonable to call the article WP:OR and primary rather than secondary.  For these reasons--unless there is more information--I think it would be okay to remove the entire sentence and source.  I would check for other better sources that make similar allegations before removing it, however.  Let me know if you have questions about my opinion.  Please note this Wiki article in under Discretionary Sanctions & 1RR. David Tornheim (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with you when you say that "fudging" is provocative, that's a good way to describe it and I wasn't able to think of a good way like that to express what I thought of it. The article definitely seems like it is trying to "push" an opinion and doesn't offer any counterarguments. Though, regarding your comment about the article not seeming like it was written by an expert, if you follow the link at the bottom of said article to go to the author's blog and click on the "About the Author" section or go to Palagummi Sainath's Wikipedia page, you'll see that he is an authority on this subject. I don't mean to try and prove you wrong regarding that, just wanted to let you know after I did some minor research about the author. I will continue to do more research to try to collect some better sources that support the claim and then compile them here before doing anything else. In the mean time, if you wish to remove or modify the sentence please do so. --SygerrikJenrys (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks for letting me know.  I me be wrong and said person is an expert.  Thanks for doing the research!  David Tornheim (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you both that "fudging" is a suboptimal word choice. I made this change:, and I hope that it fixes the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I have marked this discussion as fixed. I am still in the process of collecting sources, I will make another response to this discussion compiling them for your review before adding them. --SygerrikJenrys (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for catching that re: the access date, I copy and pasted that citation template in from an example and forgot to get rid of that. --SygerrikJenrys (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of request for RfC
Please see: WP:ARCA. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Paper retracted
Which has been used "politically". Might count as a controversy? Alexbrn (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's already been added to the article. SmartSE (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow great - how diligent our editors are! ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Genetically modified food controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130721121312/http://www.aphis.usda.gov:80/newsroom/content/2007/10/content/printable/RiceReport10-2007.pdf to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2007/10/content/printable/RiceReport10-2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 13:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion of Rules for RfC on GMO food safety
A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety language based on the five proposals at GM crops here. This RfC will affect the current language in paragraph 4 of the lede of this article. The Wordsmith Talk to me and Laser brain   (talk)  have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms
This is a notice that Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms is open for public comment. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

FAQ update
I've made an attempt at updating the FAQ, which hasn't been changed since before the second RfC. Please feel free to edit further - the description of the second RfC is my interpretation, although I think a reasonable one. I think the most important point is to make it clear that "no consensus" refers to the RfC result and not to the scientific consensus. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 00:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Pollan quotes
In my opinion, it's OK if the quotes from Pollan reflect his POV, because the quotes are attributed to him. Also, he is a food writer, not an environmentalist. But I have no objection to adding a bit of language along the lines of "what he says are...". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, he is a sufficiently prominent and respected expert on food that I think it is appropriate to devote a bit of space to his position in these controversies. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that each of these are common debunked talking points of various advocacy groups, so we need to be really careful about weight here. In this diff the edit under my name is at least concise. The edit your your name Tryptofish specifically mentions monocultures, yield, property rights, and research restrictions. Monocultures are not specific to GMOs, intrinsic yield hasn't been much of a promise yet, crop patents in general not specific to GMOs, and Monsanto does not restrict research. I actually agree with using food writer instead of environmentalist. I would suggest reverting everything after the but back to my last edit though to have a more balanced statement where we don't need to address the talking points further from a weight perspective. Basically: Food writer Michael Pollan is not against all genetically modified crops, but expressed concerns about biotechnology corporations holding the intellectual property of the foods we depend on restrictions on scientists studying genetically modified foods. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the recent NAS source is that, in fact, GM yields have not been improved. So I see no reason to leave out what he said about yields. Perhaps there are ways to say things along the lines of "what he says are problems with (monoculture/research restrictions)". I'm not sure of that last point, but I'm open to either doing it that way or leaving those parts out. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not quite correct, but it's tricky because there's nuance on what yield means (the source I mentioned above goes into it). The selling point so far has really been protecting yield from pests, which is an increase in yield compared to being under pest pressure. It depends on location (I believe NAS covers this a bit), but most countries that currently use GM crops also tend to have used chemical controls previously instead. Typically, both protect yield the same amount or only a slight amount more with GM, but that there is a bigger yield bump is less developed countries. Even Monsanto acknowledges this.


 * Increasing intrinsic yield or the maximum output of a plant under no stress is what most non-scientists actually think of when they hear yield increase, but that's not super feasible with GM approaches (it's a multi-gene trait) and is just something still in the pipeline. NAS is generally referring to this aspect of yield when we're talking about no yield increase, but the argument about yield has actually become something of a strawman by those confounding the two terms. Some mistakenly think NAS's statement means that GM crops failed to deliver on yield when in reality they're just saying GM hasn't been applied to that aspect of yield yet. I don't think we really want to dedicate the space to explaining this here, so that's why I prefer the more concise version in my last edit. I do have some plans to work on agronomy articles soon though, so we could revisit this specific point to tackle yield in the context of GMOs head on at a later date. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Your link from Monsanto was meant to show that Pollan's claims about scientific agreements are mistaken.  However, the page confirms that Monsanto has and continues to restrict scientific research with required contracts.   Monsanto's page states:
 * The issue of academic research first gained major media attention in February 2009. A comment was posted in the Federal Register from a group of 26 scientists...who study insect-protected GM crops. The comment was sent to the EPA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP).... The scientists stated that Technology/Stewardship Agreements are a barrier to independent research. The statement reads as follows:


 * Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.


 * The page continues with Monsanto's surprise that researchers that got access to their seed and who they may have helped fund would complain like this. But the further quotes show the agreements are real and continue:


 * "Monsanto has agreements with universities that enable thousands of researchers to conduct research programs with our commercial products."


 * "Years ago, each time a scientist or group of scientists from a university wanted to study Monsanto’s products, both parties would sign a contract specific to that study. The sheer number of such studies for which we provided our seed made that model of contract signing cumbersome for both parties."


 * "As a result, Monsanto introduced the blanket agreement, which allows university scientists to work with Monsanto’s commercial seed products without contacting the company or signing a separate contract. This blanket agreement – the Academic Research License (ARL) – enables academic researchers to do research with commercialized products with as few constraints as possible. ARLs are in place with all major agriculturally-focused US universities – about 100 in total."


 * Yes, it is no surprise that their description of the contract sounds completely different than that of those who complained they were overly constricted. We can't judge what "as few constraints as possible" means.  Regardless, it is clear these contracts exist and even Monsanto acknowledges that scientific researchers complained about how it restricted them.  This page does not disprove Pollan's comment, but just gives a different subjective view of the contracts.  Monsanto's "talking points" as you call them.   --David Tornheim (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're unfamiliar with the research agreement history. The "stewardship agreement" was intended for preventing competing corporations from doing their own research on a product, etc. but that was overly broad and did create some legal gray zone for scientists. For quite awhile now, researchers have been able to do mostly as they please with varieties., and that was even before these articles. Either way, it's straight from the horse's mouth what those agreements pertain to, so we really can't be saying Monsanto is suppressing GMO testing due to NPOV. If I wanted to at my university, I could do some testing on one of Monsanto's varieties (yield, efficacy, etc.) and publish it without Monsanto being able to lift a finger as long as I'm not doing breeding work and trying to make my own variety out of it. The last thing we need to do in terms of this content in question though is make hyperbole that conflicts with reality more prominent. That's why care is needed with statements from Pollan. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We cannot verify statements about the kind of research you can or cannot conduct at an unnamed University. Only an attorney with expertise in the relevant area of contract law can.  So your statements about what research you believe you can or cannot do under Monsanto's contract is irrelevant.


 * I do notice we have a section devoted to Genetically_modified_food_controversies. We should be looking at the law reviews to see what they say about these restrictive end-user agreements, rather than the opinions of non-attorneys.  It appears Emily Waltz who you cited is not an attorney .  Michael Pollun probably is not an attorney either.   --David Tornheim (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No, we are not limited to attorney's "with expertise in the relevant area of contract law". We are only restricted to using reliable sources, and we have two very reliable sources on the topic at hand,
 * Both of them are published in Nature Biotechnology; A highly ranked journal from a highly respected publisher that easily meets our sourcing requirements. Claiming that we should be looking for articles in "law reviews" (very few of which are peer-reviewed) for opinions on this topic—while ignoring high quality sources—has no basis in policy. If we are going to cover "restrictive end-user agreements" then we will need sources that confirm their continued existence as a source of actual controversy. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Waltz article you link includes a clear indication that significant restrictions remain: Quote "Studies outside of agronomic research, such as breeding, reverse engineering or characterizing the genetic composition of the crop, require separate contracts with the company." Health research also appears to be outside the scope of the 'agronomic'.Dialectric (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any indication that the remaining restrictions are "significant", or that health research is restricted. Are there any reliable sources that we could use to support such information? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Waltz article you link includes a clear indication that significant restrictions remain: Quote "Studies outside of agronomic research, such as breeding, reverse engineering or characterizing the genetic composition of the crop, require separate contracts with the company." Health research also appears to be outside the scope of the 'agronomic'.Dialectric (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any indication that the remaining restrictions are "significant", or that health research is restricted. Are there any reliable sources that we could use to support such information? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Protective effects
This content was recently inserted that has at least in part failed to gain consensus. Some conversation has already occurred outside this article talk page. The problem with but transgenic soybeans has protective effect to a lesser percentage (64%-101% for conventional and 23%-33% for transgenic diets) is that it is WP:OR. We do not engage in comparisons of numbers. We let sources do that for us, especially when you need a statistical test in scientific topics to compare percentages. If the percentages actually were different (or a difference worth noting) Domingo cited with the content would have said so.

Instead, Domingo clearly states, It was found that transgenic soybeans were non-mutagenic, having also protective effects against DNA damage similar to those of conventional soybeans (64%–101% for conventional and 23%–33% for transgenic diets). Until another secondary source comes along saying they are substantially different, we cannot engage in further editorializing of the statement than to say the protective effects were similar. I agree that including the actual percentages are undue weight (simply not needed information for our audience) that can be read in the paper itself if it so interests someone beyond the realm of encyclopedic knowledge. Tryptofish's edit here was probably the most in line with how Domingo describes the study, so I'm apt to restore that approximate version in the near future barring changes in what's been discussed so far. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * After all, the primary source is "Conventional (MG-BR46 Conquista) and transgenic (BRS Valiosa RR) soybeans have no mutagenic effects and may protect against induced-DNA damage in vivo." Including the percentages here seems misleading, since without consulting the study there's no way of knowing what they actually mean (effect size, dose response, statistical significance, mutagen, etc.) --tronvillain (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you that the content needs revision. It seems to me to be trying too hard to make a difference out of something that is not really supported by the sources, unless one makes too much out of a primary source, when the secondary source takes a more measured position. At this time, the language on the page is: Research in 2012 found that both conventional and transgenic Roundup Ready soybeans (aroA:CP4 gene) were non-mutagenic, and also had protective effects against DNA damage in mice, to a larger extent for conventional than for transgenic soybeans. I suggest we change it to: Research in 2012 found that both conventional and transgenic Roundup Ready soybeans (aroA:CP4 gene) were non-mutagenic, and also had protective effects against DNA damage in mice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The only thing I would remove is the mention of the gene. Domingo specifically references that they are isogenic lines instead, and that's all we really should mention. This basically means the lines are very similar, but you usually need to do some additional work to say it's actually the gene causing an effect instead of something correlated in the overall genetics. Basically, this would fall into the same category as the percentages where it's a detail better left for the citations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's a good point. Perhaps let's wait a day or so, in case the editor who added the content wants to comment, and if not, then we can go ahead and delete those parts. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * but transgenic soybeans has protective effect to a lesser percentage (64%-101% for conventional and 23%-33% for transgenic diets) It is present in Venâncio VP at al article abstract (and in text of course). And Domingo gives number, comparison is easy and trivial, 23-33 lesser than 64-101 anyway, it is junior school or kindergarten computation Cathry (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We generally don't take information from primary sources per WP:MEDRS. As I explained in my post above, this is nothing trivial or at a junior school or kindergarten level to make this comparison formally. One needs at a start an understanding of basic science at a college level to deal with the required statistical tests that we are not qualified to do as anonymous editors. At the end of the day, if a secondary source like Domingo says they are similar, that's what we'll report. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we really need to be guided by what Domingo, as a secondary source, concludes. In other words, let Domingo, not editors here, decide what is and what is not significant. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Domingo provides numbers. Cathry (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned above, Domingo does not make a statement that those numbers are statistically or biologically different, so we can't be making the claim that there is a difference. It is debatable whether including the numbers is too WP:TECHNICAL for our audience here, but the consensus so far has been that they aren't needed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To tronvillain from primary article text: "As shown in Fig. 1, the groups that received conventional soybeans had a more evident protective effect (64%–101%) than those that received transgenic ones (23%–34%).The MN test results show a correlation with another in vivo soybean study described by Azevedo et al. (12), where the transgenic soybean was less protective than the conventional one."Cathry (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what the primary text says: with exposure to 50 mg cyclophosphamide, there was a decrease in the incidence of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes in the bone marrow of mice compared with the positive control (for diets containing 1, 10, and 20% conventional or transgenic soybeans): 64%, 101%, and 85% for conventional (though 64% and 85% were not significantly different from each other) and 28%, 23%, and 34% for transgenic (not significantly different from each other). It's not apparent that justifies including the ranges without context and describing them as "but to a lesser extent for transgenic soybeans" or "to a more than two times smaller effect" when Domingo describes it as "having also protective effects against DNA damage similar to those of conventional soybeans." And Azevedo et al. didn't even find a significant difference in MNPCEs. --tronvillain (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is apparent to authors. Cathry (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The authors aren't editing a Wikipedia article. --tronvillain (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To Tryptofish I warned about a distortion of the text already Cathry (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To Kingofaces43 gene modification is only original notable difference before study, so it is important Cathry (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop making groundless warnings to me. Yes, Domingo provides numbers, but Domingo also says what conclusions he draws from those numbers. If editors were to say "Domingo draws one conclusion, but we are going to draw a different conclusion", then that would violate the core policy of WP:NOR. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Domingo gave figures and apparently did not think that it will be read by people who can not compare numbers Cathry (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But along with those figures, Domingo said: having also protective effects against DNA damage similar to those of conventional soybeans. He was not saying that people comparing those numbers should conclude that the numbers were not similar. If he thought that they were dissimilar, he would have said so. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Similar is not same/equal. Cathry (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, and that is why I advocate saying and also had protective effects against DNA damage in mice, and not and also had the same protective effects against DNA damage in mice. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This does not appear to be a controversy, or directly related to a controversy. As an animal study focused on one crop, I don't think it should be included in this article at all; inclusion gives undue weight. A statement about antimutigenic properties of soy could be relevant to the soy or gmo soy articles, but is too specific to belong here unless there is more coverage.Dialectric (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that you point it out, I think that's a very good point, thanks. It's basically a single study that found no statistically significant differences (per Domingo) between GMO and non-GMO. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the differences seem to have been statistically significant, but as Dialectric says, it's an animal study focused on one crop. And it was described as having a similar protective effect by Domingo (as has repeatedly been pointed out), in a section on soybeans in which essentially every other study found no difference. --tronvillain (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, right. Thanks for correcting me on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "it's an animal study" there were only animal studies ever "essentially every other study" in fact it was only study which measured protective effects. Other were (from this Domingo review): 1. general toxicological Qi et al. (2012) Wang et al. (2016) (there were some significant significant differences but being attributed to incidental and biological variability), 2. ecological interactionsHorak et al., 2015 (note, Horak is from Monsanto) and study about Monsanto variety 3. not about glyphosat tolerant  Chukwudebe et al. (2012), He and coworkers (2016),Herman et al. Fast et al. (2015) Cathry (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)(2011). And this study (Venancio) mentions it correlates with study of Azevedo et al Additionaly this study in reliable source shows compositional differences. Cathry (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You make a valid point, that the fact that it is an animal study is not decisive. For me, it's more important that it is a single study, and that it does not really illustrate the subject of this page, which is controversies. (As noted above, it would fit better at pages about soybeans or GM soybeans.) Where has there been a controversy about this study? In what way does it resolve a controversy? It seems to me the only way to make an argument to that effect is to infer that the numerical differences in the study actually demonstrate that GM soybeans are less desirable for the human diet than are conventional soybeans. And there are two fatal flaws with that argument. First of all, the one secondary source that picks up on the study, Domingo, concludes that the study does not demonstrate that there is any health-related difference in humans. Secondly, for editors to decide that there actually is such a difference in humans would not only be a logical stretch, but would also seriously violate WP:SYNTH. For me, I find it useful to think of primary scientific sources by remembering that a Wikipedia page is not like a school book report. We are not here to report everything that we find in journal articles. We are here to report what is notable by Wikipedia's standards. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like there is WP:Consensus (not unanimous consent) to remove the passage. I'd like to leave this discussion open another day or two, but then it should probably be removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not agree it should be taken out. I do agree that the text from Domingo carries more weight as a secondary review than that of the primary study.  That Domingo cites the study gives the study more weight than if he had not cited it, so the primary study can be footnoted as  has done.
 * I see no problem with adding the raw numbers provided by Domingo. Domingo does take exception to the substantial equivalence assessment technique in the same paper, even if he is not appear to be relying on this example to form that opinion.  Although Domingo did say the protective effects were "similar", the inclusion of the raw numbers suggests they are not necessarily "equivalent", which I assume is why Domingo provided the raw numbers and why Cathry added the sentence.
 * I do think this is minor point that weakly calls into question whether the GM soy is "equivalent" to non-GM soy in its antimutagenic and mutagenic behavior.  And, therefore, I see justification for including the sentence.  --David Tornheim (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you carefully considered the comments above, about why the content makes more sense for pages about soybeans or GM soybeans, than here? Where has there been a controversy about this study? In what way does it resolve a controversy? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the discussion and do not see why the sentence should be moved to the soybean article. It makes sense regarding substantial equivalence.  I have no objection to copying it to the soybean article.  I already answered the second two questions in my response above. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see how this page should address controversies about substantial equivalence. But in this case, I think it would be much better to, instead, quote Domingo's criticisms of SE. By using the mouse study to serve that purpose, we are engaging in SYNTH. It requires synthesis to go from the fact that numbers for DNA mutations in mice were somewhat different, to saying that these numbers somehow cast doubt on SE. It really is SYNTH for us, as editors, to conclude that those data either raise or resolve any controversy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove the section. There is no controversy addressed by the section so it doesn't belong here. Capeo (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)