Talk:Regulation of genetically modified organisms

Section Order
A editor wants the sections to be in alphabetical order. The three comments used in the edit summaries were "sorted the countries into a better order with ection nesting", "Having the sction in alpha order is better" and "It helps prevent systemic bias, and the dominance of the US is expalned in the History section. I did other changes to improve the article as well". The only reason given is that it prevents systemic bias. I don't follow that reasoning as enforcing an alphabetical order will encourage systemic bias as the order will always be the same for articles separated by continents. The previous order first mentioned the USA as they are the largest producer of GM crops, then Europe as they have the strictest regulations. This order seems logical to me and I have found no other policies that say sections need to be sorted into alphabetical order. AIR corn (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. An alphabetic order ensures that, taking a world-wide view, countries are treated equally. Anybody reading the text can work out those things that are important. For you the important issues are clearly the quantities of GM crops grown and the level of regulation, but your view should not colour the structure of the article. Your response on my talk page was very redolent of ownership, an approach which is best avoided.  Velella  Velella Talk  22:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) I was the editor that changed it to and alphabetical order. The original heading nesting by country and continent was quite illogical as Veletta pointed out in his/her ediit summary. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the African system is modeled on the US one. So it makes sense to explain that before the African one. How does alphabetizing it make all countries equal. It puts those starting with A consistently ahead of those starting with Z. It also forces an order that may not work for every article. Surely the best order is the one that is the most use to the reader. I spent hours researching and writing an article and then someone makes mass changes to it without even bothering to discuss it on the talk page and I am accused of ownership when I ask them to discuss it. Now Alan has just stripped it and not even bothered to come here. No wonder there is a growing gap between content contributors and everyone else around here. AIR corn (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I would like to reiterate Veletta's point about ownership. This is a wiki and whatever we do here is always subject to scrutiny. If other editors do not agree with the edits that we make than we have to find a consensus position. Perhaps I should apologise for my lack of communication prior to making the recent, major edits. I did the edits boldly because I felt that it really was the right thing to do. Note that the information is not lost - it is simply transferred to what I think is a better place. By the way, I know quite well the amount of time needed to write article content.


 * Getting back to the issue of section contents and order, I made the changes for a number of reasons. Firstly, having them in alpha order avoids systemic bias, obviates the need to make possibly subjective decisions about which is the most important section and lastly I split them into sections based on legal jurisdiction. Prior to my changes Canada was lumped in with Central and South America, and New Zealand and Australia were listed in one section. Because we are talking about regulation I would like the article split into sections based on legal jurisdiction. At present there is too much stuff lumped at a continent level, which would be fine in a summary article (hmmm, maybe this should be a summary article...) but not for a decent treatment of the topic.


 * I made the bold split of the US regulation since there was too much detail here and the stubby Genetic engineering in the United States article was begging for more content. I even think there may actually be room for a Regulation of GMOs in the United States article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * While being bold is necessary, so is discussion. This is because an edit that seems obvious to one person may not be to someone else. WP:BRD is an essay but it is good advice on how to handle situations like this.


 * No one has explained and I still fail to understand how alphabetical ordering prevents systemic bias. Doing this the order will always be Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania and South America, therefore we have introduced our own systemic bias. It does remove subjectivity, but I feel that is undesirable. We need to make subjective decisions when editing here all the time; deciding what information to include or exclude. It is an important part of writing an encyclopedia as it means we present the best information in the best way.


 * If we are going to split out sections Europe should be trimmed too. We also have to take into account WP:Undue. The New Zealand section is now the same length as the USA one. Also when splitting you might want to use a copied template to maintain attribution. AIR corn (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Having alphabetical order may give a perception that there is no bias. It is due entirely due to the demographics of WP editors and the inherent bias that we have. Enforcing alphabetical order when appropriate is tidier and easer for the reader to find a specific country (or continent). All to often I come across articles which list the US first for no good reason.


 * WP:UNDUE is more applicable to contentious subjects that have a small but vocal alternative POV, rather than being used for a list of facts about regulation such as this article. Having said that there should be at least some relationship between the size of the sections and the importance of the topic. If nothing else it will show that the research for the article has been done. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How about doing the summary style article you mentioned above. Keeping everything to continents with two to three paragraphs for each. Europe and North America will link to Genetic Engineering in USA/Europe pages, which will go into more country specific details and non-regulatory stuff. As Asia, Africa and the others expand we can split them into more specific pages too. More general sections could be added. A section detailing the politics/differing viewpoints between USA and Europe would be useful. One of the interesting things about regulation is that these two regions have such differing views on GMO's and how they should be regulated. I have read papers that explore why so there should be enough information to write a paragraph or two. There could be other non-country specific sections that could be added too. AIR corn (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

listing scientists' affiliation in the lede
hi there has been some action in the lede, with folks wanting to add a list of affiliation of "some scientists" who are not convinced that GMOs are safe enough. I reverted, and was re-reverted. Rather than go edit-war, let's discuss. Comment on reverting my reversion was "Omission renders a bias when the reference explicitly defines 'some scientists'. Your changes ultimately redefine the effect of this statement" Here are the problems I see with listing and with the justification for undeleting: 1) There are indeed a number of scientists who think that GMOs are not safe enough. They are at many different institutions.  Why just list those 3?   2) It seems to me that the only reason to add the list of institutions, and those three, is that they sound mighty prestigious, and the goal of adding them is to try to give more weight to the "side" that says that GMOs are not safe enough. This is inherently argumentative. (adding them is argumentative -- they were not there, and they were added today. So my changes do not "redefine the effect of this statement" -- they kept the statement what it was, a simple statement.  Not an argument on one side or other of the debate). There is an entire, very lengthy, article on controversy that gives lots of space to the arguments that GMOs are not safe enough. Why do you want to insert the controversy here? 3) it is also somewhat misleading, since it gives a fast reader the impression that these institutions all are anti-GMO. Which they are not.  Some scientists are. 4) Most importantly, and really most importantly -- This article is not about the controversy - it is about regulation, which is a topic worthy of its own, clear discussion. The lede already makes it very clear that there is controversy and the immediate next sentence refers the reader to the controversy article to learn about it. The lede should be about the topic of the article, not about the topic of a different article.

Those are the reasons why I think the list of institutions doesn't belong in this article. Please, be reasonable and let's not fight the controversy on every page that touches on GE. I look forward to hearing from you!Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions Jytdog. I agree that the controversy should be well defined in the appropriate article and less so here. The concern did not stem from specific institutions (WHO, AMA, NAS), but rather the absence of entities. The statement gave an impression, an unfair comparison when "broad scientific consensus" was merely compared to "some scientists". I believe your resolution is fairly weighted. Grshpr09 (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks!! Glad we came to agreement!Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Sentence on “broad scientific consensus” of GMO food safety fails to achieve consensus: It is time to improve it.
The Request for Comment (RfC) here created by Jytdog for the purpose of reaffirming the findings of   this  previous RfC on the language and sourcing of the sentence of a “broad scientific consensus” of the safety of GMO food (found in numerous articles) has closed here. There is no longer a consensus supporting the sentence. The closer stated:


 * Should the sentence be removed? Or maybe modified (and if so, to what)? There is no clear consensus on any particular action....Some of the opposes in this discussion appear to agree with the substance of this section but feel that the wording of the one sentence is overly broad; they might support more nuanced statements. I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording

I would also like to note that the closer of the earlier RfC made a similar recommendation:


 * ... it may be helpful to refer to to some of the literature reviews to represent alternative views on the matter with respect to due weight.

With these recommendations in mind, I have provided a new sentence in the article and for discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food that I believe is more WP:NPOV than the original that failed to achieve consensus at the recent RfC. Because the sentence occurs at numerous articles:


 * Genetically modified food controversies (Talk)
 * Genetically modified food (Talk)
 * Genetically modified crops(Talk)
 * Genetically modified organism(Talk)
 * Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (Talk)
 * March Against Monsanto (Talk)
 * The Non-GMO Project(Talk)

I suggest we continue to consolidate talk at Talk:Genetically modified food. David Tornheim (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"add Scotland and Germany ban GMO crops"
about this added with edit note "add Scotland and Germany ban GMO crops": In August 2015 Germany and Scotland announced to ban genetically modified crops.

Both sources talk about an intention to ban GMO cultivation per the new EU law. Neither is actually banning it. We don't know at this point if they will ban or not. If/when they do, that is definitely something to add. Right now we have two WP:CRYSTALBALL statements that are just news, and not encyclopdic content. See WP:FART. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is widely covered in mainstream media, if you don't like the current sources we can replace them, see for instance this article by Bloomberg, which reads "The German government is clear in that it seeks a nationwide cultivation ban". Also the notion that an announcement is not worthy to include here is not in line with current article content, which cites many announcements. It is also not a trivial addition as the editor implies above.prokaryotes (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Scotland Gov announcement "Growing genetically modified (GM) crops will not be permitted in Scotland, Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead has announced as he moved to protect Scotland’s clean, green status." http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/GM-crop-ban-1bd2.aspx prokaryotes (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I was actually about to remove the content before Jytdog removed it the second time. If they actually do go through with a ban (which would be officially declared in about a month according to the source), that would be the time to add it to the article once it's official. Otherwise WP:CRYSTALBALL applies pretty relevantly here. We'll reach encyclopedic quality information at that time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom, requests for cases
A request for an Arbcom case and a AE request to apply pseudoscience discretionary sanctions  have been filed that may affect this article. All editors wishing to make a comment should visit the pages linked to. AlbinoFerret 17:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The AE request was closed and the Arbcom request is still open and accepting statements. AlbinoFerret  02:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * An arbcom case which covers this article was closed on Dec. 12 2015. See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms. Dialectric (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Philippines Ban GMOs
The Philippines bans all GMOs recently overturning existing Department of Agriculture regulations.

A petition filed on May 17, 2013 by environmental group Greenpeace Southeast Asia and farmer-scientist coalition Masipag (Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura) asked the appellate court to stop the planting of Bt eggplant in test fields, saying the impacts of such an undertaking to the environment, native crops and human health are still unknown. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, citing the precautionary principle stating "when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish the threat."

Reference Philippines Court of Appeals: http://ca.judiciary.gov.ph/cardis/SP00013.pdf

Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration in June 2013 and on September 20, 2013 the Court of Appeals chose to uphold their May decision saying the bt talong field trials violate the people’s constitutional right to a "balanced and healthful ecology." http://edigest.elaw.org/sites/default/files/ph.greenpeacese.pdf

http://edigest.elaw.org/sites/default/files/ph.eggplantsept2014.pdf

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 8, 2015 permanently stopped the field testing for Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) talong (eggplant), upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals which stopped the field trials for the genetically modified eggplant and also took the unprecedented step and invalidated the Department of Agriculture administrative order allowing the field testing, propagation and commercialization, and importation of GMOs.

"The SC invalidates DA Administrative Order 08-2002, permanently stops field trials for BT eggplant, and temporarily halts applications for field testing, progagation and commercialization, and importation of GMOs until a new AO can be promulgated in accordance with law. (GR Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301, 209430)."

Reference official twitter account of the Philippines Supreme Court: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1so0g8g

As it is noted in the previous thread regarding Scotland but relevant here, jytdog states that "We don't know at this point if they will ban or not. If/when they do, that is definitely something to add" - here is a case where it is fact banned without question. I don't know how it could be made clearer and more fact based.

00:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Vergilden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)


 * The editor you reference above has been banned from the GMO articles per this recently closed ArbCom decision.  Hopefully you will be able to add NPOV and RS  material without the same kind of obstruction experienced from the past.


 * Please note that if there is any opposition to your changes, do not edit war; there is a 1RR restriction and Discretionary Sanctions on this article per this this ArbCom decision. I suggest you skim the lengthy case if you have time.  The entire case is here -David Tornheim (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Lede
The lede does not reflect what is in the article. Specifically it does not say that regulation varies widely by country. I intend to correct it to reflect what is actually in the article. -David Tornheim (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It used to . I wouldn't say widely as there is basically the USA and Europe and then everyone follows one of those two. I would suggest something closer to the original that mentions USA and Europe by name. AIR corn (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is that simple. Can you provide RS that backs up your claim?  Also, I question the need for this edit which I will discuss separately. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is well known that the largest gulf in regulations occurs between the USA and Europe. This is probably the most interesting thing about regulation and should get a prominent mention at the start of the article. Hopefully you realise why I had to make this edit. AIR corn (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the differences between the U.S. and Europe are the ones you see most often discussed, as in this article, but as I described in the lede, a number of countries permit no GMO's at all to be cultivated, so clearly that is not the same as the case-by-case method of the E.U. or the U.S.'s method.  A number of the countries like Russia and China appear to have their own way of addressing GMO's, and then there is Lebanon, that "appears to have not yet adopted any policies or legislation, either restrictive or permissive, on genetically modified organisms (GMOs)".  So basically saying each country follows one or the other model is misleading.
 * I do appreciate that you caught my typo of case-by-cause. Thank you.
 * Regarding this edit, I do disagree. It is true that this and other Wikipedia articles say that substantial equivalence is "the starting point" for assessing GM food safety, as if this is the beginning of a special process for GM food, when clearly it is not:  "The United States does not have any federal legislation that is specific to genetically modified organisms (GMOs)." .  So adding the phrase "starting point" is misleading.  GM food is the same as all other "novel food".  So, the lede and every other place that mentions "substantial equivalence" needs to be corrected. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead has to summarise the article. So if it says it is the starting point then so must the lead. AIR corn (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

1st sentence of lede and Title of article
I question the need for this revision. The recent overall changes to the lede are discussed above. I have not looked extensively to see if regulation of GM research varies between countries, but it is clear that even in countries that are very restrictive of import and/or cultivation (or that ban either or both), often research is permissible. I am not sure that research should be in the first sentence, and I prefer it at the end of the paragraph. But, I do not have strong feelings on that.

A second aspect of that edit brings up an even more important question for me: Why is the title of the article not simply "Regulation of genetically modified organisms", but instead includes the words "of the release" as your edit also does? The article appears to me to be about ALL regulation of GMO's, and that a specific article about "the release" of GMO's is confusing and unnecessary (however, a separate article on labeling might be valuable). I have not looked into the history of how that title came into being. Maybe it was created at a time when there were very few GMO's and the "release" was more prominent in RS than other aspects of regulations (or lack thereof) such as labeling. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically there are three parts to regulating Genetic Engineering. You first need to get permission to do the work. You are then governed by procedures when you are conducting the work. And finally you have the regulations you need to pass in order to get the product out into the world. I quickly realised when I wrote this article it was going to be dominated by the last part. So I moved it to this title and created Regulation of genetic engineering as a parent article. As far as I can tell labeling is part of the regulation (it even has its own section here). AIR corn (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. I did not even know of the existence of the article Regulation of genetic engineering.  I always thought it was covered exclusively by this article.  I think we really need to do the work  has spoken about to better organize these articles, because if experienced editors like myself who have spent a lot of time on the GMO articles do not know how they are organized, no way is a new reader going to understand it.  I mistakenly assumed all the major articles were covered in the list provided in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Genetics/GMO_articles.  Perhaps the author who listed them was not aware of some of the related articles either... I have some ideas on how to address this kind of confusion... --David Tornheim (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Think of Genetic Engineering as an overview article for all the GMO/GE articles. You can even go back further and call genetic engineering a sub (or "Daughter") article of Genetics, which is a daughter article of Biology, which is a daughter article of Science and so forth. Just about every section in Genetic Engineering links to another article that expands on that section. You can see under Regulation that it contains a main link to both this article and the Regulation of genetic engineering article mentioned one above. This article itself links to country specific regulations through mains as well. It is all part of a hierarchy system all topics use so readers are not overwhelmed with information at any given article, but can also find more information easily if interested. I think it works rather well. If you want an extensive list of all GMO related articles see Category:Genetic engineering or for a easier to navigate version Template:Genetic engineering. Note that not every article will be linked there either as it still relies on editors to add them to the template or category. AIR corn (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms. 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/20140516172125/http://www.co.jackson.or.us:80/page.asp?navid=3967 to http://www.co.jackson.or.us/page.asp?navid=3967

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 22:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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


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

to:


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

The discussion is taking place here at   at the talk page of Genetically modified crops. Please comment there. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:51, 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 paragraph 3 of the lede of this article. The Wordsmith Talk to me and Laser brain   (talk)  have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:43, 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)

Revert of material not subject to RfC
With this revert, you deleted material that I restored was not the subject of the RfC. It is further explained in this discussion. I would appreciate it if you self-reverted. I do not agree with your edit that effectively deletes material that has been in the article for many months. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * David, I don't think the notification/ping thing works for IP accounts (although I might be wrong). In any case, everybody, nothing here is an emergency unless editors start edit warring with one another, so please let me suggest that everyone slow down until the issues discussed at User talk:Coffee get figured out. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I was never sure if the ping worked or not. Is there a proper way to Ping an IP editor other than to go to their talk page? I went ahead and put a note on the IP's talk page.  Also there is discussion of the IP at my talk page:  User_talk:David_Tornheim --David Tornheim (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. Yes, I saw those discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Regulation of genetically modified organisms as unopposed page move. (non-admin closure) -- Yashovardhan (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms → Regulation of genetically modified organisms – Is there a reason not to prefer this more WP:CONCISE title? Or would it be better established as a redirect to Genetically modified organism? --BDD (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, and open to persuasion. I guess it depends on whether or not it is important to distinguish this kind of regulation from regulation of laboratories creating such organisms. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm open to one of these moves. Release really refers to the approval process (USDA, EPA, etc. we have in the US), but the labeling thing doesn't really fit under this currently title. The word label comes up 44 times currently in this article, so I think it could be argued to move to Regulation of genetically modified organisms at least. I'm curious what Aircorn thinks as they created the initial split. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I originally created this under the Regulation of genetic engineering title. I moved it because I decided that what I had written was purely about the release of commercialised GMOs and not about the laboratory research and development side that is also highly regulated. I then turned Regulation of genetic engineering into an overview article which covers the whole gambit of regulation. Those were simplier times, one could just be bold in this area with little backlash. It is possible to merge the two back together, I just felt that the other regulations (much of which were carried out in the name of research only) would get drowned out. I actually do not like this title as it is a bit of a tongue twister. The article as it stands has changed a lot since its inception, but the focus is still pretty much the same so a new title should probably reflect that. How about Regulation of the commercialised genetically modified organisms to make it a bit clearer? AIR corn (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that sounds pretty opaque. I know this is a complex subject, but I'd hope we can at least make the title that clearly communicates the topic to the average reader. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What about Regulation of genetically modified crops? Most of the discussion covers crops as there are very few animals or bacteria that generate the same level of controversy. Crops also differentiates from plants grown in the lab for research. Any outliers could be covered in the Regulation of genetic engineering article (Aqua advantage salmon for instance). You could go Regulation of genetically modified food to cover them as well, but that raises issues with cotton and some other crops. Also there is already a reasonable divide of articles along the crop line (Genetically modified crops, List of genetically modified crops etc). AIR corn (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with Regulation of genetically modified crops. And actually, there is no need to exclude animals (such as the salmon) that are raised for food, in which case it wouldn't be an outlier. That would leave, as outliers, more limited examples such as GloFish. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was wrong about that. But Regulation of genetically modified crops and livestock seems reasonable to me, and is somewhat less clumsy that the current page name. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an improvement, but I'm curious how things like GM mosquitoes would throw a wrench in that. Right now I keep going back to Regulation of genetically modified organisms with the bulk of that being crops and livestock with the odd mention of things like insulin producing bacteria, pest control-based organisms, research regulation if any, etc. for minor sections. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If we go that route we may as well merge Regulation of genetic engineering into this as regulation of genetic engineering and regulation of GMOs are essentially the same. I am not sure this is a good idea for reasons mentioned above. I know it was a bit backwards, but maybe it would be better to think of the Regulation of genetic engineering article as the main article and this one as a WP:split from that. AIR corn (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it didn't click before, but that framework makes perfect sense now. If we were going to do a merge, I think I'd actually rather see this article merged into Regulation of genetic engineering instead, but I think I'd be content without a merge for now. This article looks like it would need to be focused though since things like labeling don't apply to release. I'll take a gander at that at a later date. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Half the trouble is that editors seem to find this one before the other and assume this is the main article. Another option could be to get rid of this article altogether. We can merge some back into the regulation one, some into Substantial equivalence and create a Labeling of genetically modified organisms article. Not sure how to handle the by continent section, but there are Genetic engineering in Hawaii, Genetic engineering in the United States, Genetic engineering in New Zealand, Regulation of genetically modified organisms in Switzerland, Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union, Genetically modified food controversies in Ghana, Biotechnology and genetic engineering in Bangladesh and maybe more. Some were splits from this article, some existed before this one, most should probably be merged and consolidated. AIR corn (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that readers find this page before the other one tells us something about what most readers are looking for: and it's about crops and livestock, in other words sources of foods, rather than regulation of genetic engineering broadly defined. Remember also that regulation of genetic engineering should also include regulation of potential engineering of humans. So I think it makes sense to continue to have a page about sources of foods, and there would be no problem with leaving the mosquitoes out of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not looking to remove any information, just to move it around a bit. If anything it should help readers find what they want. This was not a terribly interesting topic to write about when I started and the one editor that was most interested in this aspect of Genetic Engineering can no longer edit this area. So unless anyone else is willing to do some legwork I think our best approach would be to do a bit of rearranging and organising of what we have got and then fill in the gaps as needed. Everyone agrees that this title is not ideal and as no rename really works it might be best just to subdivide it into logical places (We could do Genetic engineering in Europe, Genetic engineering in Africa and so on to deal with the different countries). We can always start a Regulation of genetically modified food later. AIR corn (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you about it not being worth a lot of effort at this time. Perhaps, instead of any moving around of content, it would be simpler and quicker to just rename the page for now. If no new title is perfect, we could still go with the best of a mixed lot, with the understanding that things will be polished up later. WP:There is no deadline. I think any of a couple of proposed names would be reasonably acceptable, and something of an improvement on the status quo. I think Regulation of genetically modified food would be just fine, and I also continue to like Regulation of genetically modified crops and livestock or Regulation of genetically modified crops. Let's not let the proverbial perfect be the enemy of the good-enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * I would like to ask if other editors are satisfied that this close correctly determined a consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess no one specifically opposed the move, although I thought the discussion was leading towards other alternatives. AIR corn (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't deny that other alternatives were also being discussed but at the time of closure, it felt that this was the most supported title. If there's a problem, I'll revert back my move or move it to the alternative proposal? Yashovardhan (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Aircorn's description. I guess the close was slightly premature, in that the discussion had been moving in the direction of other alternatives, but had not yet settled upon one alternative. But that's not the same thing as a consensus for the rename that you enacted. I don't think it's necessary for you to revert the page move, and it's not that big a deal. But what I do think needs to happen is for you to agree to a reopening of the discussion, in spite of your close. In that spirit, I'm going to start a follow-up discussion right now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with re opening of the discussion. Rather, I'll be more happy than not to perform another move if a new consensus is reached! Just ping me when there's some consensus! Yashovardhan (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Re-boot
It seems to me that the discussion indicated interest in, at least, the following possible renames:
 * 1) Regulation of genetically modified organisms
 * 2) Regulation of genetic engineering
 * 3) Regulation of genetically modified food
 * 4) Regulation of genetically modified crops
 * 5) Regulation of genetically modified crops and livestock
 * 6) Other?

I do not object to any of these, and I would rank my top, second, and third choices as 4, 5, 3, respectively. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2, 3, 4, 5, 1 I was working on the Overview article (comments at Peer review/Genetic engineering/archive1 would be welcome) and it is hard to find information about the non-food/crop commercialisation stuff. Even my reference I used at Regulation of genetic engineering is dead and I stupidly left it as a bare link. I may have erred in separating them all those years ago and feel we could merge them back and create a logical, easy to find and decent article on regulation. Saying that I am happy with the other options provided in the order I have numbered them above. AIR corn (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2 or 1 for me. I'm just catching up on the events here. I'm more in favor of keeping the article title where this is handled as broad as possible, get content built up and in a good framework, then split off daughter articles such as crops that are going to take up the bulk of the content. I'm not entirely opposed to 3 either, but that can be a follow-up step once it's solidified how to address various types of regulation in general within whatever article title is chosen. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be my preference as well. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it sounds like everyone except me is leaning towards 2. I won't stand in the way of that, but I would like to repeat my earlier concern that such a title makes it sound like the page is about regulation of laboratory procedures, which it is not. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am seeing this as a merge not a straight rename, so the lab stuff and approval will still be there. In fact there is bugger all to move (substantial equivalence, labeling, plus any pertinent points from the by continent section). I made a table in Genetic Engineering which could be copied across to better explain all the different regulatory agencies in different countries. Then every thing else, all the information relevant to individual countries that makes up the bulk of this article, will eventualy be moved to the appropriate Genetic engineering in [name of region] article. I am willing to do most of the work myself and I think it will make a much more natural flow for readers. AIR corn (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK then, that sounds great. You just have to definitely perform that initial merge within a reasonable amount of time after the rename, in order for the rename to make sense. If that's the case, it's beginning to sound like we have a consensus for Regulation of genetic engineering. I'll wait one more day, in case there are any other issues, and if not, I'll re-ping the closer. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)