Talk:Genetically modified maize

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): Stanleybee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

BT Corn
Corn rootworms have rapidly evolved to resist Cry3Bb1 Bt corn Voracious Worm Evolves to Eat Biotech Corn Engineered to Kill It. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkit (talk • contribs) 03:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
I removed the link to http://www.rense.com/general40/GMcropsfailing.htm as a reference to removal of Bt 176 from the market as this site didn't seem to be credible. The report referred to was from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace which are not known for their NPOV. In addition, the information on the Wikipedia page stated that Bt 176 was withdrawn from the market after review by "competent authorities" in the U.S. This was a quote from the web page referred to and gave no indication who the "competent authorities" or why they chose to withdraw Bt 176 from the market.

I found information from the E.P.A. about the withdrawl of Bt 176 from the market and added that as a reference. I also gave information about why it was voluntarilly withdrawn.

I removed this sentence from the end of the Starlink controversy section because it fails NPOV:

"There have never been any adequately controlled studies to determine whether StarLink actually poses any greater risk of allergic reaction than ordinary varieties of corn."

The word 'adequately' clearly makes this statement one of opinion. If a similar statement is to be reinstated it must attribute this claim to the specific organization (regulatory body or consumer advocacy group probably) or expert that made it. An external link next to the sentence (rather than listed below) would be helpful as well. --AAMiller 29 June 2005 14:26 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't explain my last change better, I had written something but forgot to save the change. The following phrase is the one in question:

Corn sent by the UN and the US as help to Central American nations was also found to contain a large percentage of StarLink corn.

I had changed "large percentage" to "some", and in the summary I asked for a citation. The anonymous editor changed "some" back to "large amount". I will assume this was an honest attempt to correct the problem. However, I did not say that I thought a citation was needed just because the word "percentage" was used. Rather, the word "large" is what I was concerned with. "Large" is subject to interpretation, and somewhat loaded. It could mean more than half to some, or half of a percent to others. This statement is far from being the only one in Wikipedia that needs a citation, and for that reason the qualitative information can stay. However, I will not condone the use of a Weasel word to make it sound quantitative. If a hard figure cannot be cited, then it must suffice to say that "some" of the starlink corn was present. Again, sorry I failed to save my explaination the first time. --AAMiller 02:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Supersweet varieties
Why not include supersweet varieties in this article?

I added info on the Attribute (tm) sweet corn. The Attribute corns are synergistic supersweets.Jtmilesmmr (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed Yamamoto Ichiro's link again, not for lack of relevance but because it is improperly formatted and placed in the article. I'm not educated on the subject enough to tell, but if it's a proper reference or link, then it needs to be placed in the article as a reference or working link, not pasted in the middle of the article. Thanks! -- Syd 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Attribute sweet corn
I added the section and the link to Seedway, but had not signed in first. Only my IP shows. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be an annon poster on a such a contoversial subjJtmilesmmr (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)I have since chgd the link to the Rogers seed Attribute page as it has more info.Jtmilesmmr (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

infertility in mice
A report by greenpeace does not count as a reliable source.

As it turns out Greenpeaces report is based on preliminary results from some Austrian scientists who "published" a report at a press conference. Report: Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice Authors: Alberta Velimirov, Claudia Binter, and Jurgen Zentek Sponsor: Austrian Ministries for Agriculture and Health. Date: October 2008

This report has not been published in a refereed journal and has thus not been peer reviewed. Thus, it may contain errors. The report has been reviewed by the scientist that invented the method used by the Austrians to examine the mice fertility. He has found many mistakes in the report and concludes: "When properly analyzed, these data do not appear to suppor an effect on fertility or reproduction from consumption of GM corn" 

Since the claim has no reliable source I will delete it. Ttguy (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What are all the genes?
What are all the genes that have been added to these corn and from what foreine species? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C518:62C0:4808:D1F7:42E5:4542 (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Long term Roundup herbicide or Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize extremely toxic & carcinogenic
Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS.

Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.

Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov;50(11):4221-31. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005. Epub 2012 Sep 19.

Abstract

The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1ppb in water), were studied 2years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3-2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.

[PubMed - in process]

Full Free Text:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

--Ocdnctx (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Main discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies AIR corn (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead
I expanded the lead, because: 1) there is a tag on the article saying the lead needs to be expanded 2) as per WP:LEAD the lead is meant to summarize the article.

That is what I did.

User:Canoe1967 reverted the expansion in this dif, with an edit note saying "Belongs in the body, not the lead". This doesn't make sense. Canoe can you please explain? thanks Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

# of people affected by Starlink
In this dif User:Canoe1967 changed the number of people affected from 28 to 51.

The CDC report http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9cReport/summary.htm in the article says

"The investigation concluded that 28 people had experienced apparent allergic reactions. These people had also reported eating corn products that may have contained Cry9c protein. With the endorsement of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Scientific Advisory Panel which convened on November 28, 2000, CDC recommended that the banked serum samples be evaluated to see if they contained evidence of an allergic response to the Cry9c protein."

What is the source for the number, 51? Please provide in the article. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, User:Canoe1967 just edited the article in this dif and reverted to the 51 people number, and added a source: http://www.usda.gov/documents/LLP%20Incidents%202.docx which says "After the discovery of StarLink® in food, 51 people reported adverse effects to the Food and Drug Administration. This information was provided to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which conducted an epidemiological investigation. Of the 51 cases reporting adverse effects, 28 met the case definition for the CDC investigation. Of these, 25 gave FDA permission to release identifying information to CDC."


 * The text now reads: "51 people(ref)http://www.usda.gov/documents/LLP%20Incidents%202.docx(/ref) reported apparent allergic reactions related to eating corn products that may have contained the Starlink protein. However, the US Centers for Disease Control studied the blood of these individuals and concluded there was no evidence the reactions these people experienced were associated with hypersensitivity to the Starlink Bt protein"(ref)CDC, National Center for Environmental Health. Investigation of Human Health Effects Associated with Potential Exposure to Genetically Modified Corn: A Report to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta,GA:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001.(/ref) (ref markup changed to avoid formatting issues)


 * I am OK keeping the 51 number for people reporting - we need to include the number of 28 people as people report all kinds of irrelevant things - in this case, 23 people did. So I am adding text as shown in italics here: 51 people reported apparent allergic reactions adverse effects to the FDA; these reports were reviewed by the CDC, which determined that 28 of them were possibly related to Starlink.  hopefully this is acceptable to Canoe.  Please note that including the phrase "adverse effects" is not copyvio - it is the the term of art for describing these things. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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


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

to:


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

The discussion is taking place here at   at the talk page of Genetically modified crops. Please comment there. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion of Rules for RfC on GMO food safety
A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety language based on the five proposals at GM crops here. This RfC will affect language in the Controversy section of this article. The Wordsmith Talk to me and Laser brain   (talk)  have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms
This is a notice that Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms is open for public comment. AIR corn (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Article Critique
Lead section is clear, rather short. It's very broad but it summarizes the rest of the article.

Structure is clear and organized. Each section has a header and the information correlates with each subject header.

Some sections are very short- only one or two sentences. Each section should be balanced and this article has sections that are heavier than others.

Coverage is neutral. There is no bias in this article.

Plenty of reliable sources.

Products in development: This section is lacking in information, more than just one product has been, or is under development. This section should be improved to add to the overall balance of the subject. This section could include not only food products developed from GM maize but also potential biofuels or non-crop related products.

Corporate Espionage: This section is also lacking in information. There are only a few, pointed sentences about this section. More detail should be given to fully understand the happenings of this event. This section is not completely clear on what seeds were being stolen or what type of trade secrets were being stolen.

Stanleybee (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No such thing as genex or not, ceptu, be/can be any no matter what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhendq (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Genetically modified maize. 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/20130402204619/http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagement/Pages/roundup-ready-system.aspx to http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagement/Pages/roundup-ready-system.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721173513/http://www.gmo-safety.eu/archive/237.monarch-butterflies-threat-individual-caterpillars-population-whole.html to http://www.gmo-safety.eu/archive/237.monarch-butterflies-threat-individual-caterpillars-population-whole.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115215719/http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm to http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm

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) 06:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

What's the deal with the "Health Safety" sub-subsection?
It seems like a big non-sequitur, and doesn't really seem to have much to do with health or safety, rather, it's a section about crop performance. I feel like the relevant parts of that info could be more efficiently put into another section, rather than a sub-sub-heading that doesn't match the contents, but I ain't knowledgeable enough about the field of corn to go about doing a whole page reorganization, so I'm just gonna leave a talk page note and hope that bringing attention to it gets someone more knowledgable's attention. Peace 'n' love, y'all. 170.251.112.65 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The text should probably be made more to the point, but the gist is since the Bt trait ends up reduces mycotoxin levels due to insect damage, it also decreases health risks associated with those mycotoxins. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Rename to Genetically engineered maize
This page should be renamed to Genetically engineered maize to match the common viewpoint that this is not "modification" but "engineering". Ergzay (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Resistance
I would suggest a review of the "resistance" topics of the article since many sections appear to bring misleading information about the mechanisms. Resistance is not developed or created by GMOs. The fact is that resistance is a naturally occurring phenomenon and the inadequate use of GMOs or pesticides/herbicides/fungicides can SELECT and promote differential reproduction of these naturally mutated individuals. Sintropepe (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Modern Mexico
— Assignment last updated by Profmexhist (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)