Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 8

Forbes

 * Courtesy cross post. I saw this on Forbes the other day stating:


 * A recent paper by independent Italian scientists noted there have been 1783 studies on safety and health issues related to GMOs over the last ten years alone, including many publicly funded studies, confirming the safety of GMOs. The literal avalanche of GMO safety studies, short term and long, have prompted more than 100 of the world’s independent science bodies to conclude that foods made from genetically modified crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic varieties.


 * So, Forbes is stating in no uncertain terms that there is scientific consensus that GMO foods are safe (well, as safe as non GMO)Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I would oppose adding this to the article (others may want to) as Forbes is generally very much in favor of GMOs.  In a controversies article I look for sources unimpeachable from both sides. But thank you for cross-posting! Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an op-ed, I missed that when I posted. But the article discusses and points to the research.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

lead
Having been buried in other stuff, I was reviewing the article today and noticed the change to lead.

A while ago, the lead read:"There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food."

In response to User:semitransgenic's desire to add something about substantial equivalence to the lead (which I thought was a good idea), after some discussion that I missed, back in mid-September User:aircorn made a change to that, in this dif: to "The starting point for assessing the safety of all GM food is to evaluate its substantial equivalence to the non-modified version. Further testing is then done on a case-by-case basis. Despite concerns over potential toxicity, allergenicity or gene transfer to humans from GM food, there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food."

Today, I changed this to: "The starting point for assessing the safety of all GM food is to evaluate its substantial equivalence to the non-modified version. Further testing is then done on a case-by-case basis to ensure that concerns over potential toxicity and allergenicity are addressed prior to a GM food being marketed. There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food"

The problem I have is, with "Despite concerns over potential toxicity, allergenicity or gene transfer to humans from GM food, there is....."

I object to this because:
 * 1) it makes it seem that there is any legitimate scientific concern about gene transfer to humans, when there is none (there is legit concern about toxicity and allergenicity of new GM foods, which are addressed by testing);
 * 2)  I think that putting the grabbag of legit and illegit concerns about potential products, and the consensus about actual marketed products, in the same sentence is confusing for readers.  So, so many of the people who have objected to the consensus statement seemed to think it had to do with any GMO, real or imagined, and not the actual, specific crops that have been approved for food use;

So I made the change shown - which just involved getting rid of the illegitimate concern about gene transfer, and tying the concern about toxicity and allergenicity to the prior sentence about the regulatory approval process and standard testing, instead of tying them to the subsequent sentence.

Hopefully that makes sense. Happy to discuss, as always. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me Geraldatyrrell (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the sources that support the health/safety claim. I know the GMO pages have been beating this dead horse for months, but can we just discuss the AAAS source first. Is there something longer than what this link points to or is that 1-pager it?Geraldatyrrell (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a one pager all right. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is this the flagship source? There is no author listed, no peer review process, the focus is on labelling and not safety, there is no scientific analysis, and it relies on the opinion of experts (whom I doubt are experts in relevant fields). Regardless of the AAAS's prestige, this source doesn't meet the standard I expect. Why not just cite Snell et al. directly? Geraldatyrrell (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't read a love letter like a bomb threat or like a biology textbook. Genre matters. The AAAS statement was not intended to provide the scientific justification for the consensus;  it is a statement of the consensus itself, deployed in response to the labelling initiative and the frenzy of BS that was poured out about the supposed toxicity of currently marketed GM foods.  That supposed toxicity is the #1 reason for labeling initiative, which if it succeeded, would require huge changes to our food supply chain.  It seemed reasonable to me the board of one of the most esteemed scientific bodies in the US weighed in on the issue and stated the consensus for anybody who would listen.  There are of course scientists on the fringe on this issue, who objected to it.  Most scientists did not object.Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jytdog, and I think the AAAS source is actually a very appropriate one. One can think of it as being a secondary, rather than primary source, and as such, it's particularly useful for sourcing the scientific consensus (as distinguished from the conclusions of a single scientific study). --Tryptofish (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is secondary only because they didn't conduct a study, but should not be confused as scientific. There is no meta-analysis or literature review, just the approval of a panel of experts: Andrew Petter is a lawyer, Toope is another law buff, and Turok is a physicist. Fedoroff was the president at the time and is credentialed in the right field, but she is just one person. There isn't enough transparency to know what their review process is like, or who made up the other half of the board at the time of publication. Sources are used to support claims about hypotheses and to lead readers to more information. The AAAS report supports the claim without science. There must be better options that are scientific. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * AAAS is a WP:RS with respect to mainstream science. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, and still this report is not transparent, conducts no review, presents no data, is sparse on sources, not scientific, likely not peer reviewed. A plea of RS doesn't dismiss the points I have made. This is expert opinion and largely from the wrong sort of expert. A true secondary source (meta-analysis or lit review) is more appropriate, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldatyrrell (talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, AAAS are the peer reviewers. It's been barely two months since the editing community spent a large amount of time and effort at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 6, where the closing statement concluded that the consensus is that the AAAS source, amongst others cited, is appropriate justification for the content in question here. If we really need to reopen the same discussion so soon, let's at least make very sure that we are not rediscussing the same things, so please make sure that you bring new arguments to the discussion. That said, if you would like to add one or two representative primary sources, that would probably be fine. But please make sure not to give undue weight to sources that do not represent the majority scientific view. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gerald, I am confused. You are asking this to be something that it is not and I don't understand why.  Asking for a critical review is entirely appropriate, but is a different thing than asking this to be something it is not.  As I have mentioned to you, many of the content and sourcing disputes on this page have arisen from (to be frank) unclear thinking.  Can we please keep things clear?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am asking what Wikipedia asks and that is to back up articles/claims with reliable secondary sources. This is a secondary source. The AAAS report is a specter of a source. I have read the rfc and there is some discussion on this topic, but it was quickly deflected to discussion of Michele Simon's opinions leaving legitimate claims unanswered. To be clear, I'm not contesting the claim, just the source. The report was not peer reviewed and should not be paraded as if it was because it was "written by the reviewers". Reviewers publish and are still reviewed by other anonymous referees, they are not above that standard. I'm sorry if this discussion seems old and tired, I am bringing new and casually dismissed arguments to the fore, and I don't want to add a new source (although that would be fine), I want to contest a poor source. Please continue to offer constructive discussion, but don't dismiss my points by providing links to what constitutes a RS. (a) This is expert opinion not a review/meta-analysis, (b) Not scientific because no claim was evaluated, (c) No peer review process, (d) No transparency (can you tell me who wrote it and list the board members who signed off?), (e) Just two cited sources... Science/Nature articles manage to squeeze more in less space. Jyt, I'm not sure what to make of your comment. What do you think the first source listed under a claim like this should be? Geraldatyrrell (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources do not have to be published reviews or meta-analysis to be acceptable. In fact I would hold that this is better as it clearly spells out the scientific consensus in a easy to access document. It covers the views of the EU, World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society and of course the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I wouldn't describe it as an opinion piece, or if it is it is the opinion of one of the most influential science organisations. It is a summary of the science so doesn't need to evaluate any individual claims. Just being published by the AAAS makes it peer reviewed. It doesn't matter who the actual author is, it is presents the views (and is signed off by) the AAAS. The only issue I can think of with using it is if there is some concern over the AAAS's ability to interpret the scientific consensus of these organisations or that they are being misleading. AIR corn  (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why this is such a sticky issue with you. Might does not make right. Arguments referring to how large the aaas is don't make their views right or wrong, that should end. If the EU, WHO, AMA, NAS, BRS, or AAAS have published reports that cite actual science and not just opinions, let's see them cited here. For the record, this is not peer reviewed, are you sure you understand how that process works? It can't be peer reviewed, it doesn't pose a hypothesis to test. Any organization worth its salt would back up claims with evidence. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My first comment in this section so not sure what stickyness you are referring to. Right or wrong doesn't matter as that is not Wikipedias job (for what its worth I think they are right). It just reports what others say and right now the AAAS, not just a single paper but a highly reputable mainstream science organisation, is saying that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food. We don't need the WHO, AMA or any other organisations direct reports as this is already covered by the AAAS. Unless you think they are lying about this? AIR corn (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Gerald, I am somewhat symphathetic to your stance, but I am somewhat frustrated. In the realm of food safety, there is almost no hard data that eating any kind of food is 'safe'. For example, please show me any study that demonstrates directly that eating kidney beans (or tomatoes or corn or wheat etc etc) is 'safe.' Part of understanding the consensus on the relative safety of currently marketed food from GMOs, is understanding how the scientific community arrived at that consensus. I wrote to you elsewhere, that one of the canards of the anti-GMO movement, is that there are no clinical trials that prove the safety of food from GMOs. This is a huge red herring of an argument, and if what you are asking for is something that like that, we should stop here and discuss that. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * as i said i am somewhat sympathetic to Gerald's stance, so i moved the "decade of EU research" source into the lead (after AAAS), and added the quotation from that document to the citation itself. I demoted the Bett article about Kenyan Gatekeepers.  It has a good discussion of the consensus, with sources, in the introduction section, but the title is too easy a target and leads to big time-waster discussions (a skeptical reader who is too lazy to read it or cannot get access to the article, may conclude from the article's title, that the encyclopedia is trying to make Big Claims based off a market survey in one country;  this is not the case of course). Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said previously, I see no valid reason to delete the AAAS source, but I also think it would be OK to add more sources, if that would help cover the concerns raised here. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * AAAS is really a tertiary source as per MEDRS and WP:PSTS - it is not trying to review and synthesize the literature of primary sources (what a secondary source does) but is rather collecting the results of others' reviews and affirming them. We have a bazillion sources already - we are already at overkill and I don't think we need more. I did re-order them as described above. Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tryp, you aren't giving reasons to back up your point of view, and adding other sources won't solve the problem. The problems I have raised are only with the aaas report as a source backing up the point that gmos are as safe as their counterparts. Within that claim we have two parts (1) [the claim] gmos on the market are safe enough to eat, and (2) [the qualifier] there is scientific consensus. The qualifying consensus point is getting all of the attention while the more significant scientific claim is being forgotten. Surely there is a place for the aaas report, but it is not here. The aaas report is quite far removed from the actual science, and there is obvious skepticism among the public. A few clear peer-reviewed reports, without rhetoric, would go a long way towards calming that suspicion. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gerald, tertiary sources are perfectly fine under MEDRS and PSTS.Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But this tertiary source is not perfectly good and nobody seems to care about addressing any of the concerns I have brought up. If they are synthesizing the views of other secondary sources why don't they reference them. Nobody has offered a credible rebuttal to my arguments about the aaas report. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC) -- Addendum: The MDERS article echos my earlier points that the best sources are well documented secondary sources that are peer reviewed. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This conversation is going off the rails, Gerald. You are not responding to what people here (including me) have said in responding to you (and everybody has directly responded to you, with real good faith efforts to address the concern you have raised.)  If you don't respond to the responses, but instead keep repeating your initial point, we are entering the territory of WP:IDHT.... and by the way a tertiary source is find fine under MEDRS.  Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC) (copyedit my comment, meant to say "fine", as in "acceptable", under MEDRS.  Jytdog (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC))
 * It is not going off of the rails. I parsed my argument out and still it is not addressed. Please respond to these points which I have been raising throughout this discussion. With regard to the aaas report:
 * It is not peer reviewed. It was published anonymously outside the peer review process, with zero transparency. Strike 1
 * This is expert opinion at best and evaluates no scientific hypotheses, not even vague general hypotheses. Strike 2
 * The source is not primary because no study was conducted. It is not secondary because there was no lit review or meta-analysis. It is not tertiary because there are no references to secondary sources from which it could generalize. This falls outside the bounds of rigorous study and has no place in Wikipedia. Should I start quoting WP:MEDRS to justify my statements? Strike 3
 * I have brought all of these claims up multiple times and in multiple ways and the best response I get from all of you is that aaas is a great and powerful group, their word must be trusted. This is silly. This is a scientific claim, I say to support it with science not with the musings of the aaas board. If you think I am wrong on any of these counts, please show me and for all of our sanity, don't appeal to the prestige of the aaas, your fatigue in dealing with this issue, or the supposed lack of structure. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You said that I am not backing up what I said with reasons, which is not true, and I'm coming to agree with Jytdog that you are veering into WP:IDHT. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt one last time:
 * It was published by AAAS, with the approval of the editors of Science, one of a handful of journals that exert the very highest level of selectivity as to what they will publish. It's not some mom-and-pop magazine, and it's not a purveyor of propaganda. There's no lack of transparency. It is explicitly attributed to the AAAS Board of Directors. The source links to the Directors' full statement here:, where it says: "Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 20 October 2012". Here is a link to the Organization and Governance page about who the Directors are:.
 * The source's purpose is to express a view, not to conduct an original study, so there is no reason for it to experimentally test a hypothesis. Of course it is expert opinion. That's what Wikipedia reports. We present published expert opinion, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors.
 * I'd settle for you quoting WP:PSTS, because the way you are defining primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is not the way that Wikipedia defines them.
 * Now I'm going to present you with, in effect, number 4. I pointed you earlier to the very recent RfC. You brushed it off with the claim that the discussion then did not really address this particular source in detail. That is patently untrue, to the point of ridiculousness. The source is discussed repeatedly in the RfC comments, and the subsection under the header "Source fidelity" is an extended discussion that focuses very much on exactly this source. I take it you don't like the outcome of that consensus, but that was the consensus. And you are not persuading anyone here. Seems to me that you have struck out. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Responding to Gerald and Trypto. General statement first. If you look at MEDRS, there is a section called Medical and scientific organizations which says "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources"  That is exactly what this is. I also point you to the AAAS mission statement here - this statement falls solidly within that mission (specifically points 2, 4, and 5 in their mission).   The reason why this source in particular is so valuable, is that it is a statement by a reputable major medical and scientific body that in turn points out conclusions made by other reputable major medical and scientific bodies. There is no better way to show the consensus.
 * 1a Gerald. please show us in PSTS or MEDRS where it says that Tertiary sources that are statements from reputable major medical and scientific bodies must be peer reviewed. You will not be able to. This is simply untrue.  1b) Gerald, when you say "it is published anonymously" this is simply untrue, as Tryptofish and the source itself shows. Trypto, I don't know on what basis you say it was "published with approval of the editorial board of Science."  This seems to me to be simply untrue.  Please explain... 1c) I don't understand the charge about "transparency." What is that relevant to?  Please show me the board minutes of any reputable major medical and scientific body at which they produced a statement on a major issue.   You will not be able to.
 * 2 From my very first comment I have pointed this out to you that making this criticism is not a criticism at all, but is a genre error. This is very much WP:IDHT.
 * 3 Continues the errors of 2. Nobody said it is primary.  I realize that Trypto called it secondary, but I think Trypto is wrong on that and I have never said it was secondary.  Calling it "not tertiary" on the basis that "there are no references to secondary sources from which it could generalize" is simply untrue with respect to its basis -  the statement cites two studies explicitly in footnotes, and points to statements by other reputable major medical and scientific bodies (it would have been great had  they footnoted them but this is not a primary or secondary scientific source and is not intended to be read as one - genre matters).  I have already said how this falls within the sourcing policies as a statement by Medical and scientific organizations.
 * 4 Trypto is accurate there. Gerald I hope you respond to the place where he described what you wrote as simply untrue (my paraphrase) and to the importance of at least addressing the recent consensus we achieved.  It is fine to bring new arguments but please be part of the community and be responsive to the consensus instead of ignoring it.
 * I want to note that for me, when I call a statement "simply untrue" it is pretty serious to me. People make mistakes which is fine; if you have made a mistake I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge it.  If I have made a mistake in my own writing or in describing someone else's statement as simply untrue, please show me my mistake.  But we cannot have a real conversation at all, if we are not dealing with the same set of facts. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of things that you directed at me, so I figure I better respond to those. Bottom line: I stand corrected, thanks. About it being in Science, I just assumed that it was published in the journal in addition to being announced on-line, because I think of most things at the AAAS website as being the online version of the journal, but you may be correct. As for secondary versus tertiary, I'm fine with calling it tertiary, since we all agree it isn't primary. So all that's fine with me. It doesn't change the conclusions that I reached, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tryptofish! Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * -This was published without peer review, Jyt agrees although doesn't mind as much as I do. There is little transparency because they list no author. It was written by someone, then the board of directors in 2012 approved it. (I'm repeating myself here, but nobody addressed this point, does WP:IDHT work both ways?) If you can find a full list of those people, I would appreciate it. Nina Fedoroff was the only geneticist/biologist listed, so as far as anyone can tell, this was approved by her. Am I wrong?
 * -Jyt, I don't think aaas' mission comes into it, just Wiki's perspective on what makes a good source. From MEDRS: "Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed. Be careful of material published in a journal that lacks peer review..." The aaas report lacks peer review. Jyt, this was just a couple lines below the material you quoted in MEDRS on scientific organizations: "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." I have asked multiple times why we do not just cite the underlying literature. Finally, on scientific consensus "Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not using original research demand that we present any prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or in textbooks or in some forms of monographs." The aaas source is none of these.
 * -Jyt you are on to something with your point about genre but I still think you're missing the point. Whatever this is, secondary/tertiary, it is poor. I was wrong to say that they cited no sources, they cited two, and that is poor scholarship on any level. If this was meant to be an authoritative report, they would have done it right. This is not scientific it is political. Jyt, you were hinting at this earlier, this was published as a political tool in response to prop 37, and it served its purpose. If reflects the stance of the aaas (or at least Nine Fedoroff) but it is out of place here because of its lack of rigor. I have said this before, but again. The underlying claim (and the one discussed in the rfc) is a scientific claim and needs to be supported with science, not with a political statement.
 * -I have read the rfc and groupuscule brought up many (but not all) of the same points I have made here. I also see a lot of points slipping through the cracks (not being answered), which also happened in the rfc, from what I can tell. I think the discussion goes better when someone poses direct questions to respond to instead of leaving threads to be found, so I will try to do that. There are empirical methods to assess a consensus statement and this source did not employ them, the best reports do. When that can't be done (too few primary studies) you can poll experts in the field (true expert opinion). If you don't poll experts, you can summarize primary/secondary/tertiary research, which is what you claim this report has done, but they don't offer the proper citations to prove it. Science is done so that prestige doesn't come into play.
 * 3 Questions:
 * Why use a politicized source to support a scientific claim and not a scientific source?
 * Why use a source that is "less authoritative" (wiki's words) and wasn't peer-reviewed?
 * If you still want to use this source, how can you verify its truth without appealing to the prestige of the authors?

Geraldatyrrell (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gerald, I am no longer going to write long responses, as it is fruitless. So atomization and the clarity that comes with it, is the way to go. I wrote explicitly to you, "please show us in PSTS or MEDRS where it says that Tertiary sources that are statements from reputable major medical and scientific bodies must be peer reviewed."  Please respond to the direct question. ThanksJytdog (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jyt, nobody will find such a specific passage in PSTS or MEDRS, you ask too much. What those pages do say is this: "Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed. Be careful of material published in a journal that lacks peer review..." "The reliability of these sources [organizational reports] range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." "Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not using original research demand that we present any prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or in textbooks or in some forms of monographs." Does the aaas report fit this high standard held by Wikipedia? Geraldatyrrell (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to exclude a source and have a strong argument based in policy, it can usually be simply stated. Excluding a source that clearly violates policy/guidelines is easy; trying to argue to exclude a source that has justification in policy & guidelines is much harder and relies on persuasion. You are not persuading anybody so far. Asking for things like peer review of a statement by a major scientific body, is just foolishness (misreading the genre, which is what I have been saying from my very first comment above) and discredits the argument.  YES, the AAAS document absolutely fits Wikipedia's high standards. To exclude this, you would have to say that AAAS is not a major scientific body.  You cannot say that. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How are we to verify the aaas's statement? Geraldatyrrell (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot mean that there is a question of whether the AAAS board issued it or of what it says. So what are you asking? Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How do we verify that the aaas is correct in their statement? Geraldatyrrell (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The question is still ill-posed. I think the question you are really asking, is "Why does MEDRS explicitly say 'Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources'"? As for that question, I do not know the history of the guideline.  I can say that it makes perfect sense to me; sometimes reputable major medical and scientific bodies make public statements about scientific issues affecting society, based on their own authority, and these can be indeed be valuable sources.  In this case, there is a consensus (as our article shows by our overkill-many citations, and as the AAAS statement reflects by its own discussion and by footnoting 2 sources and noting several more by name) and the statement is a perfect and clear discussion of that consensus. Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This, by the way, is what I have been trying to say about the importance of thinking clearly. We are not doing science here; it is not on us, to verify what the AAAS report says. If you tried to use the AAAS statement as a reference in a manuscript you submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, a reviewer might well ding it.  Maybe.  But here, we are writing an encyclopedia according to a given set of rules and guidelines.  We don't use (or exclude) a peer-reviewed secondary source published in a reputable biomedical journal because of what it references or does not reference (indeed MEDRS explicitly warns against that!); we use it because that is the kind of source that Wikipedia policies and guidelines authorize.  Ditto, a statement like this from a "reputable major medical or scientific body"Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Lets be clear, you're dodging my question and the three I posed before. You also ignored 3 direct quotations I provided from MEDRS. The full quote you meant to provide is this: "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources... The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." The aaas board are not gods spouting truth from above. How do we judge the correctness of their reports? Geraldatyrrell (talk) 17:, 3450 October 2013 (UTC)

What I have said does address the entire paragraph -- nothing there is a basis for excluding this source. Especially when this source is so well supported by citations and references it makes, and by citations we make in our own article. I really don't understand what dog you have in this hunt. In any case, I and others have responded to all your questions and you don't want to hear it. If you want to keep pushing this, your next step would be to ask your question at the the Talk page of MEDRS. You may also want to work on amending the MEDRS guideline to delete the relevant paragraph, since you do not appear to like it. In any case, it is a courtesy to put a note on the Talk page (here) when you do that.Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC) (added a bit in italics Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC))
 * I want to try one last time. There is language in MEDRS that specifically authorizes sources like this to be used as a source. You don't appear to like that paragraph, but it is indeed there.  Questions you raise about peer review, authorship, and "transparency" are not relevant to these sources.  They  are not peer reviewed, the authorship is the organization, and nobody ever sees the board meeting notes that led to the decision to issue the statement.   You are not dealing this source for what it is, and you are not dealing with the section of MEDRS that authorizes its use. You could try to argue that AAAS is not a reputable major scientific body, but you have not.  I do have to say, that if this were the only source for the consensus statement - if the AAAS statement did not cite several other sources and if we did not have many, many other sources in the article, I would not push for this. But it is a great, simple statement of the consensus, and absolutely should be listed #1.  This is what the AAAS statement was made to do, and it is 100% valid under MEDRS. I really don't understand where you are coming from. I hope our future interactions are better.Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you continuing to discuss this with me. I forwarded the debate (without all the fuss) to the talk page you mentioned . I have nothing against the AAAS, I believe they are reputable, and I understand that there is a time and place for a source like this. We agree on that. I come from a science background and in that realm an author's name means very little compared to data and analyses. Without the scientific method we would know nothing of the effects of gmos on health, so there must be scientific reports out there. In my opinion those are the types of sources that should back up the claim because they are rigorously produced. You know all of this which is why I was so surprised by your responses. Next to the decade of gmo research piece by the EU the AAAS report is redundant. I don't want to change the consensus statement because you have all worked very hard on it. I would like to read through some of the other sources and see if there is a way to word the rest of the section so that the statements are backed by the most conclusive and informative sources available (I would appreciate help in this since I am less familiar with the topic than many of you). Sorry for the long note, but does this make sense? Geraldatyrrell (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The AAAS statement is unusual. If you look you will not see many other statements that they have put out.  I think (but cannot know) that it is because the issue of GMO food safety is insanely politicized and because of the amount of unfettered bullshit that is circulated about the danger of currently marketed GMOs.  So the AAAS stuck its neck out and made a clear, easily accessible to the public, statement on the scientific consensus.  It is not intended to a scientific review (the genre issue) - it is meant for the public, and is very much meant to have the weight of the prestige of the AAAS behind it, as well as the other august bodies whose names they mention.  This is why it is so great to use as our flagship source. So many people come by here and bomb this article and related articles with drive-by BS.  I have mostly answered your 3 questions but I will do so explicitly now:
 * Why use a politicized source to support a scientific claim and not a scientific source? I would not call it "politicized" but I would say that it fits with the AAAS's missions to 2) Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use; 4) Provide a voice for science on societal issues; and 5) Promote the responsible use of science in public policy.
 * Why use a source that is "less authoritative" (wiki's words) and wasn't peer-reviewed? We have plenty of those.  This is bonus, and perfect for its role as our #1 source.
 * If you still want to use this source, how can you verify its truth without appealing to the prestige of the authors? The point of this, is exactly the prestige of the organization that released it. Exactly that. It is the same reason why the American Cancer Society and the NIH and other bodies make public statements that are not scientific articles -- to communicate important information to the public.  We have scads of other sources that are standard scientific studies.  This is different.  There you go.  Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh so you posted in a different place than I recommended. RSN is fine; we get more medical-source-savvy people at MEDRS Talk, but c'est la vie.  I went ahead and posted my thoughts as I am big believer in public debate and want my voice to be heard! Gerald you should definitely do the same. Folks, here is the link to the discussion on RSN.Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Gerald, the scientific consensus is one of safety. We can use the AAAS that summarizes that consensus, or a series of cites that do so.  Is there a tactic you prefer? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not been arguing against the consensus. A series of citations is appropriate. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * More sources would be fine with me, as I said about a zillion pixels ago. If we can make this discussion wrap up by adding a couple of the primary sources on which the AAAS source and other similar sources are based, let's just do that, and be done with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors at WP:RSN pointed out this source:, that uses the exact language of "broad scientific consensus", so I'm passing that information along here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Schmeiser
(note - this was copied from User:135.0.167.2's talk page, by User135.0.167.2 at my request and with my permission. Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC))

Your edits are frustrating. You do not understand how roundup ready crops work, and you do not understand the case; why are you editing this? The initial 1997 roundup ready canola that Schmeiser found in one of his canola fields, got there by accident. It is without doubt, however, that he saved the seed from the roundup resistant canola, and replanted it in 1998. All his canola in 1998 was roundup ready. Monsanto discovered this, asked him to take a license to their patents, and he refused. So they sued him. And Monsanto won, because Schmeiser intentionally used the patented technology in 1998. Schmeiser was trying to argue that he owned the actual, physical seeds he harvested in 1997. The main issue in the Supreme Court case was whether that right of physical possession outweighed the patent rights. The court ruled that tangible property rights do not trump patent rights, and that Schmeiser clearly infringed Monsanto's patents by intentionally using the technology - he replanted the seed on purpose and intentionally sprayed his fields with roundup to kills weeds but leave his crop unharmed.Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with that story, but there was no source for it, the text did not state it explicitly, and subtly gave an impression for it. If you believe it is true, state it explicitly, or not at all. Wikipedia ought to state information solidly, not through suggestive tone. In fact, the tone should be neutral.
 * You reverted it to the story with the tone. Your edit summary implied your problem with my edit was me assuming Roundup resistant canola grew naturally. So of course I clarified that it cannot grow naturally, but still disallowed the suggestive tone. Now you finally claim the tone was right, and Schmeiser "intentionally used the patented technology," (by that you mean he knew the seeds he had were Monsanto's). You didn't provide source, although I have no problem with that--at least now you stated an explicit claim so I could find a source myself.
 * I do find it upsetting that you're discouraging me from editing because of this. I do not want inappropriate text to be left alone. I do not want Wikipedia to give subtle impressions of things without claiming them, for it gives editors plausible deniability, lowering accountability.
 * But don't feel bad about this... I'm sure you aren't causing issues deliberately. It's all understandable, really. Perhaps it was a simple mindset that anyone who makes Monsanto look bad is deliberately mud-throwing. If you're frustrated about that, it would make sense to notsopatiently revert me and attack any apparent stubbornness on my part. You may have felt it's difficult to keep assuming good faith despite a certainty I must be another crazy POV pushing environmentalist, so it's understandable to see your patience run out. Trust me, things like that happen to everyone, we just need some understanding. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit: now you provided a source, I see: same as the citation at the end the first sentence of the paragraph. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did fail to find mention of Monsanto demanding him to purchase a license in the source, but I trust it's an honest fact. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you clearly do not understand the facts of the case. Please tell me - why are you editing this content when you do not understand what happened?  No one should be ever be discouraged from editing, but on the other hand,  WP:COMPETENCE matters.  And why, when you were reverted, did you not bring it to Talk as per WP:BRD?   It is 100% appropriate to ask questions on Talk; it is not appropriate to change content from something that is accurate to something that is inaccurate.  What, precisely - and when I say "precisely" I am asking for a quotation - gives "tone"?   I do hope you answer these questions.   To answer your questions - if you actually take time to learn what happened, it is 100% clear that when Schmeiser planted the seeds in 1998, he knew that they were roundup resistant and he knew that Monsanto had patented them.  Three Canadian courts  - the district court, the appeals court, and the supreme court, found that the 1998 crop was intentionally planted.   Please stop saying that I am writing on my own authority - I added additional citations from the Supreme Court case, and a quote that makes it clear that the court found that he intentionally used the seed in 1998.  Finally, when you say "he knew the seeds were Monsanto's" -- this makes no sense.  The seeds were Schmeiser's and nobody ever contested that.  This is what I mean when I say that you do not understand what is being discussed in this section.  If you would ask questions I would be happy to answer them.  I will add a citation for Monsanto asking him to take a license in a moment.  This whole discussion should be on Talk.  You have my permission to copy it there.  If you cannot be bothered to it, please give me your permission to copy it there -- it is where this belongs. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:135.0.167.2 for copying this here. I do hope you answer my questions - they are real questions and I looking for dialogue.  I am especially interested to understand exactly what you see as giving "tone".  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

What I was saying is this. I edited the text because it subtly suggested Schmeiser knew the canola was GE and patented, but never explicitly claimed it. If Wikipedia is allowed to subtly suggest something without a claim, it gives editors plausible deniability. Regardless of what I knew, the text had to either say something or not say something--it must not suggest something only through its wording.

I explained why I reverted rather than explained: your first edit summary made it quite clear the only problem you had with my edit was the impression Roundup resistant canola grew naturally--you're practically asking me to fix that one issue with my edit. You then talked to me as if I have directly undone a more discussion warranting revert.

And by "tone," I meant the wording of the paragraph: it talks as if Schmeiser knew full well what he's doing without actually stating it. If the claim isn't explicitly stated, it creates plausible deniability, which I do not want to see. By "Monsanto's seeds," I meant seeds Monsanto patented. Maybe the technical wording is wrong, but I never claimed I was an expert here.

Let me just conclude: if I ever see a paragraph of Wikipedia that is subtly worded as if something is true, but does not claim it, I will change the wording so it doesn't suggest the claim, or explicitly mention the claim if it is known. If an editor doesn't or cannot explicitly state a fact, he/she mustn't imply it. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, what is your objection exactly? And what does "plausible deniability" have to do with anything in Wikipedia?    As far as I can see, the text is not in the least bit subtle.  It says very clearly that Schmeiser knew the 1998 canola was GE (he harvested and saved the seed that survived spraying with roundup in 1997, and replanted that seed 1998).  This is not "subtle."  Schmeiser is a very savvy canola farmer who was keenly aware of roundup ready seed and many other varieties as well.   He also knew that Monsanto had patented the seed.  Neither of these is ambiguous, and both are true.  I don't understand what your issue is.   At all.   I also don't understand what is at stake for you in this.  I'd appreciate it if you would explain.  Or... is the matter settled now? Jytdog (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My problem is not whether the fact is ambiguous. My problem is whether Wikipedia makes it look ambiguous. The fact of the matter is that it is plausible deniability, no matter how obvious an experienced reader may believe the implication is. If Schmeiser turns out to have done it unintentionally, the author of that paragraph can easily claim "well I never said he did it intentionally, did I? You misinterpreted."
 * The only way to ensure accountability in Wikipedia is to disallow anyone from adding any information they can deny they added. I don't care if you argue there's no chance Schmeiser did it unintentionally.
 * If editors can freely imply something by wording without an explicitly claim, when what's implied is true, then an editor can do that all the time, and we will be unlikely to catch him/her if he/she implies something without a claim, when what's implied is made up. This gives POV pushers an advantage, because then even when they are caught saying something false, they can argue the wording is only suggestive because you misinterpreted it. Or they can argue the wording already implied it before their edits. Good luck arguing with that. (Even if you finally convince people the wording didn't imply the fact before their edits, they could just say "oh, I see, I was the one who misunderstood the wording." But even this won't happen if many opinionated people changed the wording little by little.)
 * Whether something is implied by wording, is too subjective, therefore to be accountable we cannot allow even true facts to be communicated through only wording. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK I think I kind of understand what you mean by "plausible deniability" but it remains a completely strange way of thinking to me; thank you for taking the time to try to explain.Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

But I see you still haven't made the article give any explicit statement that Schmeiser knowingly used patented technology without a license. The claim as it stands is only suggested through the wording. In fact, much of it isn't even suggested through the wording, but the article describes each party's behavior as reactions to such a situation. Why can't we make the claim explicitly? 135.0.167.2 (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just responding to your sort-of explanation of "plausible deniability" - I had asked if the matter about content was settled now or not, which you did not answer. Now it is clear that it is not settled.  I am not seeing where you are finding any ambiguity.  The article makes it clear that he intentionally replanted the seeds; it makes it clear that Schmeiser was offered a license and refused.  The next thing that happens in the real world is an infringement lawsuit.  That is what happened.  The article makes it clear that Schmeier lost the original case (was found to infringe) and lost two appeals.  What is lacking?   Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's still missing an explicit claim that Schmeiser knowingly used patented technology without a license. Does it make the fact clear? Maybe it does make the fact clear, but that's exactly the problem, it manages to so strongly suggest to the reader it's true, without saying it is. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry 135.0.167.2 but I am really lost. Let me ask another way.  What is at stake here in your concern about "knowingly using"?  What is the risk?  I have some ideas about what might be bugging you but do not want to put words in your mouth.  Please do not answer with generalities -- what is at stake with regard to this particular passage? Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Second question - in your mind, is the question whether Schmeiser a) knowingly planted roundup ready seed in 1998; or b) whether he knew it was patented? Jytdog (talk)
 * Let me just list the solutions I would be OK with:
 * you might believe the sources suggest Schmeiser knew the seed was GE and patented, and so state that on the article.
 * you might believe the sources suggest it's questionable whether the seed was GE and patented, and so state that on the article.
 * you might believe the sources suggest Schmeiser knew the seed was GE but did not know it's patented, and so state that on the article.
 * you might believe Schmeiser didn't know he had to pay to use the seed, until Monsanto told him, at which point he should have purchased a license or else destroy the canola he planted, and so state that on the article.
 * you might not know what really happened, and so only list what you do know about the story without implying anything else.
 * If you're doing something else, please describe what it is. If you believe the article already fits one of these, you're welcome to explain. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a most bizarre interaction. You are writing as though the truth is not knowable, when there are three court decisions with findings of fact.  And that you are not reading them makes this even more strange - how can you even write "it's questionable whether the seed was GE and patented"?   Would you please answer my question about what you see as being at stake here?  What is the confusion you are concerned about and importantly, why does it matter?  I am honestly trying to answer your concern but you are being unclear about what it is.  Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear about something. The most prevalent misconception about this case, is that Monsanto will sue a farmer if seed blows onto their farms and grows.  That is not what happened here. The article explicitly says Schmeiser saved the crop from the blown-in seed and planted it intentionally the next year, and it was intentionally-planted crop that became a point of contention between him and Monsanto, when he would not take a license. From my perspective that is what is at stake here.  I don't understand what is at stake for you. Jytdog (talk)
 * Sorry, you misunderstood my point. Those were not possibilities, but suggestions and I wanted you to agree with only one of them. What I did did not mean: "there's a chance X is true, there's a chance Y is true, and there's a chance Z is true. I hope you agree they're all likely" What I did mean: "I'm not sure about your position. Is it X or Y or Z? What exactly was it you think the sources proved?" 135.0.167.2 (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not playing guessing games with you, as I do not understand the stakes and you are clearly interested in subtle follow-on implications of things. That you keep ignoring what I write is troubling too.  Please tell me what is at stake for you. What is the importance to you, of what Schmeiser knew or did not know?  I really don't get it.  You are the person with the concern - please articulate it clearly and help me understand what it is.  I am still trying.   Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe my stake is clear: if we don't take one of those options I listed above, and do not directly say which of the following stories is true, but only imply some of them more likely are, we will have plausible deniability which I do not want to see in Wikipedia under any circumstances. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You realize our goals are compatible, right? I just want you to explicitly state in the article which of those stories I listed is correct, or some other story if you think the source agrees with none of them. This way if it turns out it's wrong, you can't deny the article suggests it or that your edit made the article suggest it. I'm not saying you might be wrong in this case, I just want everyone to be in the habit of stating facts solidly if they want Wikipedia to accept the facts, so that the only want to make an article say something is to risk responsibility if it's false. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no "sides". What is troubling is that you are reading between the lines and are trying to demand that I go there with you.  I have tried to understand where you are coming from and you are not answering straight.  So, let's restrict this to content; I should not have gone down a different road and regret it now.   Please point out the specific text in the article that you are objecting to.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Made some edits this morning that might address your concern. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing which implied or mentioned "sides" or any definition of it... I wasn't reading between the lines, but trying to explain what I mean because you repeated asked. In case you misunderstood what I mean by "wrong in this case", I was talking about being wrong about the claim, not an argument. Anyways, I just want to clarify, he treated the seeds *after Monsanto demanded he get a license, right? 135.0.167.2 (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The current text is not ambiguous on that, nor are the sources. Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You realize our goals are compatible, right? I just want you to explicitly state in the article which of those stories I listed is correct, or some other story if you think the source agrees with none of them. This way if it turns out it's wrong, you can't deny the article suggests it or that your edit made the article suggest it. I'm not saying it might be wrong in this case, I just want everyone to be in the habit of stating facts solidly if they want Wikipedia to accept the facts, so that the only want to make an article say something is to risk responsibility if it's false.

Thanks, I see that... I guess I should stop wasting your time and bother someone else. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that your concerns are addressed. This was a difficult interaction but I think this passage is better now.  So thanks for raising your concerns. Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

tweak to "no evidence of harm" statement
As a result of a discussion here my attention was called to the statement "There is no evidence to support the idea that the consumption of approved GM food has a detrimental effect on human health" that was introduced by User:semitransgenic in [ this edit] as a change from "No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food." I think that language is too broad and have reverted to the older language. Hope you all agree. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

ENSSER
An editor, User:Gaba p, has proposed to include a whole paragraph in the Controversies section of the Genetically modified organism article like this (which he created and then self-reverted to show how he wanted to deploy it). This paragraph is based on the recent ENSSER statement claiming that there is no scientific consensus. Since we just went through an RfC on this, on this talk page, archived here, I am posting a link to the discussion on the GMO Talk page here. I also just posted a request on the MEDRS talk page as to whether MEDRS applies, and as to whether this a valid source under MEDRS. I note that Gaba p claims that MEDRS does not apply. The thread at MEDRS is here. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I request that people interested in discussing this issue please do so at the original thread here to avoid fragmentation. I'll leave a similar comment at MEDRS. Thanks. Gaba  (talk)  15:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

additions by Forp
Today User:Forp made some extensive additions to the article in these 2 difs. This represented a ton of work and thanks to Forp for that! The changes can be broken into 5 main parts:
 * 1) The new section on vandalism is useful - kept that.
 * 2) The laundry list of scientific bodies, however, was a problem.  First it duplicated a lot of content and sourcing that we already had. There were some useful additional sources (the recent Nature Biotechnology stuff, the statements by German, French, and Italian societies in particular).  The rest however approached a laundry list of not-so-major societies, and some of it was quite outdated.  In any case, such lists are part of what Wikipedia is not.  It also would have invited a counter-list of not-so-major organizations that oppose GM Food.  We already have a statement on the scientific consensus on food safety, which was already very well supported, and is even better supported now with the additional refs.  We don't need to beat that horse. Some of the statements and sources related to other aspects of the controversy, so I moved them there.
 * 3) The section on  Camelina sativa that produces "fish oil" didn't belong here - moved it to GM Crops article.  This exact text was also added to the Genetically modified organism article as well, btw.
 * 4) I moved the section on Bt cotton reducing the amount of insecticide used, to the section on Insecticides (note - I also changed the section header from Pesticides to Insecticides;  pesticides is broadly used to mean both herbicide and insecticides, and has led to confusion in discussion the issues here.  Bt has reduced the use of insecticides but resistance to herbicide-resistant plants has led to increased amount of herbicide use.. these conversations get tangled up when we use "pesticide" too casually)
 * 5) additional text on Pusztai affair, which Forp also wanted to add to Arpad Pusztai article and the Pusztai affair article.  This was a) duplicative to material that was already here and b) more depth than we need in this big overview article.  Kept the reference and deleted the content.  Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Hi everyone, Arc here. This is to inform editors working in this topic area that I recently decided to change my username (WP:CHU). I know this note isn't really necessary, but I'd like to err on the side of transparency and preempt any confusion or other issues which may arise. That said, I don't intend to edit in this topic area again any time soon.  Sunrise    (talk)  01:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, and welcome back after your break. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You did some great work; hope to see you again soon. bobrayner (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Widely discredited study...
You probably know this already, but if not: "An arresting but widely criticized study that stoked fears about genetically modified foods (GMOs) was retracted Thursday." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this information has indeed already been incorporated in this article and in the Seralini affair article.Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Labeling
I wanted to add that there are currently 64 countries that require GMO labeling. Seashell1 (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)§

Quote box in Health section
I just removed a quote box from the Health section which was later reverted by. I find the quote completely redundant given that what it says is already stated many times throughout the article. Particularly the paragraph right next to the box is made of pretty much the exact same content present in the quote. Regards. Gaba (talk)  15:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't feel too strongly about it, but I would lean toward leaving it in. What is says is central to the subject matter of this page, and the main text is a summary, whereas the quote box directly quotes the source. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability
I'm concerned about these edits. The verifiability policy says:

It doesn't have an opt-out so that an editor who highlights verifiability problems is then exempt from sourcing - that would be silly. bobrayner (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi I just left a message at your talk page but it's better to discuss this here. I added the cn tag to that statement just a couple of hours ago. It is usually common practice to leave the statement up with the cn tag for some time (I'd say at least a couple of days) before taking it out so as to give other editors the chance to find a source. If we started immediately removing every statement that is added a cn tag this would be chaos. If you go through this article (or any WP article really) you'll see that there are quite a number of sentences with no reference. Adding a cn tag should serve as a warning and a call for attention so editors know there is something either missing or just flat out wrong. The tag has a purpose that can't possibly be served if we just remove every statement the second it is added the tag. I'd ask you to please self-rv your last reversion and we wait until next week. If no source has been proposed by then, then we can safely remove it. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  15:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably the best thing here is not to keep reverting, whoever the editor is, who is doing it at the moment. I think it's clear that it needs an inline citation, and whoever finds one can always add it back with the cite. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The controversial nature did influence me. If it had been some bland detail rather than about national regulation in a controversial topic, then I would have been less inclined to remove it straight away... anyway, I don't want to be the one who says "The rules are the rules so we must follow them", but WP:BURDEN is quite important, especially on controversial topics.
 * Let's try to look forwards instead of back. What do sources say and how can we update the article accordingly? bobrayner (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This sentence and the one that was originally after it, were added to the article before there was a "scientific publishing" section. I noticed the one after it, and moved it earlier this morning.  Gaba then tagged this sentence, which called my attention to it.  If we keep it, it really should be moved to the scientific publishing section.  But I don't think it adds much to the substantial discussion that we already have on scientific publishing, so I deleted it rather than move it.  There are literally dozens of groups that have made statements like this and I don't see how the Japanese group is especially notable.Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Averse to Change?
"Social science surveys have documented that individuals are more risk averse about food than institutions. There is widespread concern within the public about the risks of biotechnology, a desire for more information about the risks themselves and a desire for choice in being exposed to risk.[7][7][8] There is also a widespread sense that social and technological change is speeding up and people feel powerless to affect this change; diffuse anxiety driven by this context becomes focused when it is food that is being changed.[7]"

I do not think you can measure this type of change as you would changes in architecture, music, government or technology. Food changes naturally... and people are never "anxious" about those changes. Do people accept changes in air, water and wildlife? Are they anxious when wildlife "changes" suddenly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.105.143 (talk • contribs) 20:28, December 11, 2013‎


 * Is there a question about the content or a desire to change it? This is not a place for broad philosophical conversations.  Also, did you read the source?  Thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

objection


same objection applies to this article which has the same sentence. 203.176.132.186 (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * addressed there. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Health
This article is about controversies. The section on Health talks at length about the safety of GMO food. This is not a controversy and does not belong in this article. I propose to remove anything that does not pertain to controversies. USchick (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are saying. Would you please elaborate? Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This section Genetically modified food controversies talks about consensus among scientists and the safety of GMO foods. There's nothing controversial about that. A ban on GMO food is controversial, but for some reason that's not even mentioned in the article. USchick (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand; a great deal of the opposition to GM food seems to be driven by concerns about health. And if you review this talk page and its archive you will see that plenty of editors have taken issue with the statement of the scientific consensus.  This led to a "request for comment" in which we received broader community input on the consensus language.  With respect to "bans", those come into play in three areas; one is regulation (within a given country), another is international trade (conflicts that arise when there are different regulations in different countries) and the third is international aid (when donor countries and recipients have different regulations).. all are discussed in the article.  Would you please say a bit more about what you think the scope of this article should be?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand where is the controversy in this article. It seems that everyone is in complete agreement. If that's the case, it should be merged with Genetically modified food. USchick (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you being sarcastic somehow? I do not understand what you are saying. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not being sarcastic. I'm saying that in this article about controversy, especially in the section about Health, everyone seems to be in complete agreement. If that's the case, the information belongs in the main article where there is no controversy. USchick (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be something you are not saying, which is making this difficult. Since you are not just coming out and saying it, let me guess, and please pardon me if I am wrong. It would appear that you are criticizing what you perceive as a lack of description of the views of those who believe that there are health concerns. Assuming that is where you are coming from (and again I apologize if I am wrong), there is a subsection of the Health section called "Controversial studies" that describes studies and results by scientists who believe that there are health risks.  As per WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDSCI, the consensus view is given prominence and greater weight, and the minority views are placed in the context of the consensus view. That is why the article appears this way.Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you pretending that you don't understand what I'm saying? There is nothing that I'm not saying. I'm saying: if there is no controversy, the information does not belong in an article titled "Controversy." USchick (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't make accusations. We are two people who don't know each other who are trying to communicate. I made an attempt to articulate where I think you are coming from. Are you saying that the article doesn't say clearly enough what the concerns are of those who believe there are health risks? If so, does my response about weight and my pointing you to the "contoversial studies" section help? thanks. There is controversy and the article discusses it. There is also a scientific consensus on the issue (even though there is controversy!) so the article is framed accordingly. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please point out where I made an accusation? You claim that you don't understand what I'm saying and then you put forward your idea of what you think I'm really saying. I'm not asking why the article is framed a certain way. I'm pointing out that the article is not consistent with the title. My suggestion to improve the article is to move the information where everyone is in complete agreement to the main article. USchick (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Why are you pretending that you don't understand what I'm saying" is an accusation.Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are clearly not seeing something you expect to see. I honestly don't understand what it is, that you are not-seeing. I know is hard to articulate a negative; that is why I tried to guess above. Namely, that you are not seeing a description of the "other side". Again I ask, is that what you are not-seeing?  Another note: you ~seem~ to understand that Scientific consensus means "complete agreement" as you have written that a few times above with respect to the description of the consensus. Scientific consensus does not mean that. Consensus just means the "mainstream" view. Minority views of course exist, and in this article, they are expressed in the "Controversial studies" section.  Publications from scientists in the minority view are quickly taken up by non-scientific groups that oppose GM food, who then trumpet these "health concerns" in websites like this: www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html  Of course there is controversy over health (which is why I asked if you were being sarcastic above - it was a real question; for all I know, you don't know anything about this controversy)Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Why are you pretending that you don't understand what I'm saying" is a question. You keep repeating yourself that you don't understand and then you continue to justify all kinds of things that have nothing to do with this discussion. Since you're the one who has difficulty understanding, how do you propose to solve the problem? I made an observation and a suggestion. Would you like to reply directly? Without trying to second guess anything or justify anything? USchick (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From my perspective nothing is lacking and there is no problem. There is controversy over health issues out there in the real world. The article describes the consensus position and the minority position, which clearly conflict. (and by the way "Why do you not understand?" is a question.  "Why are you pretending not to understand" is an accusation that I am not being honest - that I am pretending. I am not pretending - I really don't understand what flaw you see in the article.) Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In the health section, what is the controversy? According to the article everyone agrees that the food is safe. Why is this section included in an article titled "Controversy"? USchick (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being accused of repeating myself, a) "consensus" is not the same as "everyone agrees" and b) there are opposing views and they are represented here. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To say a little more, the controversy is that the mainstream scientific view is that there is no special risk from eating GM food; other scientists find risks for cancer, allergy, and other things.  Very different regulatory, trade, and labeling policies follow from the different perspectives.   the article spends a lot of time on the science because so many things flow from it. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A "mainstream scientific view" is not a controversy. I asked for a third opinion here Third opinion. USchick (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For the Nth time, there is a subsection called Controversial studies in the Health section, - here is a link, even Genetically_modified_food_controversies where the minority views are stated. IF what you are concerned about, is that these views are not given equal weight, please see WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDSCI as discussed above.  You are getting very close to WP:IDHT territory here.  You have not acknowledged the existence of the section, nor of the issues of weight.  Frustrating. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand, there is a "mainstream scientific view" and there are other opinions. Anything considered a "mainstream scientific view" does not belong in an article titled "Controversy." USchick (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to work much on health or science based articles, but there is no way that we give WP:FRINGE views free reign on Wikipedia. Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDSCI. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that the food is safe. That's the mainstream scientific view. Yes, there may be other opinions, but they are fringe. Why is this information discussed at length in this article? What is the controversy? USchick (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to say to you at this point. I've answered your question several times.You are now firmly in WP:IDHT territory. I do appreciate that you have refrained from actually editing the article.  Thanks for that. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I mentioned above that the statement of consensus went through an RfC. If you want to read it, is here. There has been loads of discussion about this section if you review the archives. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the science. I'm asking why this information is discussed at length in an unrelated article on "Controversies" since it is the mainstream scientific view? USchick (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are simply ignoring me - I have told you how we handle fringe views in health and science articles.Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on the length of this conversation, I don't think I can be accused of ignoring you. I'll wait for a third opinion, if you don't mind. USchick (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

while i appreciate that you have written back many times, you have not made your question more clear or responded at all to what WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDSCI say, which I brought up away back at 19:05. It is not a conversation if you don't actually respond to what the other person says. Due to your lack of response, it appears that you wish to ignore Wikipedia policy on WP:WEIGHT and to ignore the essential guideline, WP:MEDSCI - but like I said that is not going to fly. The scientific consensus on an issue is not "unrelated" to the issue in Wikipedia. There are plenty of nonencyclopedic websites you can go to that give free reign to fringe theories on GM food. This is not one of them. Yes please feel free to wait. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's relax. I'm sure both of you want to improve the encyclopædia.
 * The mainstream scientific view is uncontroversial... in the mainstream scientific view. However, once we look at a wider range of sources I think it's unavoidable that there is a controversy. We might well have strong opinions about which is the right side, but there are two opposing sides in popular discourse about genetically modified food (and its health implications). What is the best way to deal with that? bobrayner (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, bobrayner good to see you. Please note that User:USchick has proposed removing the section describing the mainstream view on health and has written that this content does not belong here. The article deals with the health content correctly under WP:MEDSCI, WP:WEIGHT,and WP:FRINGE. I am very open to improving the article in accordance with wikipedia policies and guidelines! Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is controversy about GMOs. In the section about Health, it's not clear from the article that there is a controversy at all. I propose removing all sections where there is no controversy and then see what's left. I have no agenda about fringe views, but I do like a good controversy. :) USchick (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that what bobrayner said is right. The solution, it seems to me, is not to delete the material, because what we are dealing with is: there is a controversy raised by critics of GMO foods, who argue that such foods are not safe, but there is also a large amount of source material from mainstream science, that argues that the foods actually are safe. It's proper that the page gives due weight to the scientific mainstream, and does not give undue weight to the critics. But if that leaves the misleading impression that there is no controversy, maybe we could make it clearer that the mainstream science is, in fact, rebutting a view that is fringe science, but widely held in the general public. Put another way, perhaps we (editors) assume that it's obvious to readers that there is a controversy, but it might not be obvious to someone unfamiliar with the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Made some modifications this morning to begin addressing this. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

ENSSER statement, again
The ENSSER statement was brought up back when it was made, and after a fairly long discussion we included it in the article in this dif. A discussion about the source's reliability is here and there are links there to other discussions. Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that the second paragraph is not written in a NPOV. The first paragraph nicely summarizes the issues. The third paragraph correctly attributes negative views to the groups that hold them and is written in a very neutral tone.  However, when I read the 2nd paragraph, what I take away is that there is no need for a controversy because GMOs are perfectly safe.  Rather than presenting this as the viewpoint of groups in favor of GM foods (however large or small they may be), it is written as a matter of fact.  I was unaware of the ENSSER statement's history here on Wikipedia (thanks for the links) but my reason for trying to include it where I did was to bring a bit more neutrality to the 2nd paragraph.  Tryptofish helped to whittle it down a bit so as to not give it undue emphasis.  I felt the resulting 6 word sentence together with the choice of placement helped to restore the balance without giving undue weight to the opposing side. I would be open to another approach, but, recognizing that the article is on controversies surrounding GMOs and not on GMOs themselves, is there a way we could make the 2nd paragraph a bit more neutral?  Dcm32 (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking. I included the public concern with safety in the 2nd paragraph of the lead. As per WP:MEDSCI, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE  we do not give equal weight and credibility to fringe science.Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks better to me. Dcm32 (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * :) Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the way that Jytdog revised it, and I hadn't realized that it was covered elsewhere and I wasn't aware of the past discussion, sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy of statements
In Scientific publishing(Note : all bold is my own emphasis)

The text states:

"There are more than 2,000 studies involving gene modification, of which 1,000 have been done by independent researchers"

This is not supported by the statement in the citation which reads :

"When merged, there should be well over 2000 GMO related studies, a sizable percentage—as many as 1000—that have been independently executed by independent scientists." http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/#.UzQN0fldVp0

There may very well be over 2000 studies and 1000 done by independent researchers, but this definitive claim is not made in the reference. Without including a citation that supports this definitive claim, it should be changed to what the reference is actually claiming.

"There should be more than 2,000 studies involving gene modification, of which as many as 1,000 could have been done by independent researchers."

Another text claim :

The paper produced a public uproar and demonstrations against Bt maize; however by 2001 several follow-up studies had proven that "the most common types of Bt maize pollen are not toxic to monarch larvae in concentrations the insects would encounter in the fields."

The reference states :

"The effort produced six PNAS papers in 2001 that concluded that the most common types of Bt maize pollen are not toxic to monarch larvae in concentrations the insects would encounter in the fields" http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090902/full/461027a.html

The term, "concluded" is more appropriate than, "proven" since it is exactly what the reference states and use of the term, "proven" is generally frowned upon in scientific discourse. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10


 * thanks for your patience; had a busy couple of days there. i addressed your objections. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Title could be misunderstood
"Genetically modified food controversies"--they're genetically modifying controversies now? =) --Mathieu ottawa (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone could misunderstand it... the title is fine as it is IMO, it's the content that isn't.
 * Alexlikescats (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't oppose a change to "Controversies involving genetically modified food". AIR corn (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

More than 24 long-term animal feeding studies?
In Animal Feeding Studies it states :

"A 2012 review of more than 24 long-term animal feeding studies conducted by public research laboratories concluded that none of them had discovered any safety problem linked to long-term consumption of genetically modified food."

In the abstract of the reference it states, "We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations)." I scrolled down to the table of long-term studies and only 12 are listed. I read through the multigenerational studies listed and several are not long-term as mentioned in the table. One is 60 days, another is 87 days and so on. There are a few on the multigenerational list that are long-term. However, I do not see 24 or more than 24 long-term studies listed and I see no claim in the study that they reviewed more than 24 long-term studies.

This sentence should be changed since the statement does not seem to be supported by the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportmedman (talk • contribs) 02:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Why an opinion poll in April 2014 is notable.
Other polls in the Reviews and polls section range from 2001 to 2010, with the most recent being a NY Times poll in 2013. This 2014 poll would be the most recent poll as it is only about a week old and the most recent opinion poll of scientists, regulators and industry representatives involved in food safety. It would also appear that no other opinion poll of scientists, regulators and industry representatives involved in food safety is listed on this page and this would provide an aspect of the controversy the information on this page has not previously addressed. In response to undo of edit : At a 2014 Queen's University Belfast ASSET conference an opinion poll of scientists, regulators and industry representatives involved in food safety in the audience found 44% were pro GM, 37% were opposed to GM and 17% were neutral. An opinion poll of the same group, at the end, found 40% were pro GM, 42% were opposed to GM and 17% were neutral. Sportmedman (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking! That poll was a straw poll of a relatively small number of scientists at a small meeting and most importantly, was not widely reported in mainstream media (I know anti-GMO sites made lots of hay with it).  The other polls we discuss in the article were of large numbers of people conducted by hefty organizations and tell us something about what The People think.  This is trivia.  Jytdog (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree - it was a conference on food integrity and traceability, so the audience is unlikely to have been representative of the scientific community at large. If it had been a biotech conference, the results would have been very different. I've looked for coverage in reliable sources as well and couldn't find anything suitable. SmartSE (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)