Talk:Genetically modified food in the European Union

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jelanham.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Regulation of irradiated food?
In the first paragraph there is that among GMOs, also irradiated food are subject to case-to-case testing. I'd be curious about source of that.

TH 09:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.98.82 (talk)

evaluation of page
I see the following issues with the page as of today:
 * lede: insufficient, actually like an overview section, not reflecting body
 * review section: weird out of teh blue start of article. also teh title is ambiguous and should be renamed
 * country discussion: amorphous and outdated. As far as I know, 9 EU countries had banned GMO corn a while ago.
 * scope: seems to deal with GMcrops only, not microorganisms-->should be renamed or needs to include microorganisms
 * nothing is said about different agricultural, political, economic, and societal factors.
 * the actual situation on the ground: co-mingling of GMO crops with non GMO-crops by imports.

I'll take a stab at some of the things--Wuerzele (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Addition of a definition at the top of the page would be useful, especially if the EU uses a GMO definition of any particular specificity, and if it is at all unique to definitions used elsewhere in the world. Eg, the commend above about irradiation and whether or not it is limited to animal vs plants. Does EU just consider transgenic crops to be GM? Nrjank (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

meeting the EC's requirement of showing new evidence of harm
I made a change of the recently added sentence here to:


 * , the EC reported that none of the Member States that had invoked the "safeguard clause" were in a position to provide new evidence of harm.

That the members states did not provide new evidence is not established by secondary RS, but by a Press Release from the EC. From my research, the EC is the entity that makes the determination and they are advised by the EFSA. I found one example here where the EFSA was asked by the EC to review Greece's application regarding GMO maize, and the EFSA said that the "new evidence" provided by Greece was mostly materials they had already reviewed. Clearly "evidence" was provided, but whether it was "new evidence" or not was more like a judicial determination rather than an academic fact. The applicants likely think they provided "new evidence". Because it comes from the body that made the determination it might be WP:OR. Can we find reliable secondary sources that discuss the EC's decisions in an NPOV manner? --10:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please self-revert. This article is under discretionary sanctions and your attempt to edit-war your version is not acceptable for reasons I stated above.  If you do not self-revert, I may take you to WP:AE. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I find your reasoning contrived. If you read the source provided you might understand the situation better. Regardless, I will provide more links when I get back to a real computer. In the meantime, please feel free to file an AE report if you think that is best (I've already been alerted to the sanctions). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You do understand that under WP:BRD, that WP:STATUSQUO reigns when there is a dispute? And therefore you should delete the sentence you added if you are not willing to accept a compromise version and find consensus for your edit? The relevant portion of the Press Release by the EC says:
 * Before the adoption of this Directive, Member States could provisionally prohibit or restrict the use of a GMO on their territory only if they had new evidence that the organism concerned constitutes a risk to human health or the environment or in the case of an emergency. No Member State which had adopted a so-called "safeguard clause" had ever been in a position to put forward new evidence.
 * Are you relying on a different piece of the Press Release? If so, please provide quote(s) to back up your claim that your version is a more accurate representation of the EC's position provided in the Press Release you are citing as WP:RS.  And, again I believe this is WP:OR because it comes from the EC which makes the determination.  If you can cite WP:PAG that says that the rulings of an agency, court or other judicial or semi-judicial agency making a ruling can be stated in Wiki-voice (as if their determinations are fact), I would like to see it. That contradicts what you will find in secondary sources for legal research.  Again I urge you to self-revert and strike the sentence you added that does not have support.  --David Tornheim (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union. 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/20100515092117/http://ec.europa.eu:80/food/food/biotechnology/qanda/d1_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/qanda/d1_en.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyDkekOSZZGL5lcgjIfbHcjp8GLw

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Genetic engineering in Europe. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120814025652/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/regulatory_process/156.european_regulatory_system_genetic_engineering.html to http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/regulatory_process/156.european_regulatory_system_genetic_engineering.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121206040337/http://www.basf.com/group/pressrelease/P-10-179 to http://www.basf.com/group/pressrelease/P-10-179

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Genetic engineering in the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)