Talk:The Non-GMO Project

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alex1716.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute
This article is an obvious shameless plug for the Non-GMO Project. There is no section describing the methodology by which the NGMOP determines a product to be worthy of their seal (which is only a guarantee that the company has been evaluated by the Non-GMO Project and found to use a certain level of discrimination in sourcing ingredients, not a guarantee that the product itself is actually free of GMO ingredients), the language is very salesy ("created by leaders" with "leaders" hyperlinked to their board of directors), and finally its history surrounding Berkeley Natural Grocery Co and Big Carrot Natural Foods is hardly worthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Husaaved (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I can understand tagging with G11: the language and extensive repetition was indeed characteristic of a promotional article, and I think I identified the characteristic style of one of the  paid Wikipedia editing firms-- I can recognize the style by now, but I can not assign firm names accurately, and it might, after all, simply be imitating the other articles found here. But given the NYT article, it's worth the rewriting. I rewrote what was there, but that NYT article, by far the most reliable source, gives some additional content  that needs to be added. Oddly, this WP article omitted the best known firms involved with the project.  We may not be able to eliminate paid COI editing, but I hope we can improve low quality work like this.  DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Mission
I'm concerned about this addition. It gives readers the impression that those are real problems with GMOs, which is the last thing we'd want to do when the article already sings the praises of an advocacy organisation. bobrayner (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix the issue but this organization seems to be chasing a superstitious fear of the un-know by inciting panic via bandwagon appeal. (leveraging the power of the marketplace) granted 'Kosher' foods are legal which has the Homonym whose synonym is 'Okay to eat' with 69 other homonyms no one really bothers to understand its roots. when wars have been fought over Homonyms It becomes A Necessity to Clarify and de-obfuscate the issue GMOs is far too Controversial There ought to be a rating system like 1951 Heirloom, 1970 heirloom, horticultural Heirloom, germline Heirloom(inevitably), 50year H,100y.H. Comercial H, Open pollinated Heirloom, and of course patented/patent pending, or perhaps for something to be considered heirloom its genome must be appended to a list of patented codes of Heirloom Zea, Z. Mays (just for example) If GMO's have to be patented then why not Heirlooms? they are after all claiming ownership of that tradition of passing down said seed code, root, clipping or otherwise they could then go around and attempt to collect royalties for patent infringement why should the rules only apply to some people/corporations/non-profit organizations and not others. Lightforge (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.57.119 (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2014 (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) 23:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Non-GMO Project. 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/20080614155348/http://www.zwire.com:80/site/news.cfm?newsid=19393502&BRD=1142&PAG=461&dept_id=567522&rfi=6 to http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19393502&BRD=1142&PAG=461&dept_id=567522&rfi=6

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 12:19, 29 January 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) 07:50, 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 is related to language that was formerly in the article about the Non-GMO project's Mission and would have directly affected this article if the language was still present. 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) 08:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

genetics project
Please read what I wrote about the starlink recall. This page isn't even about a gene. It simply isn't appropriate for the genetics project, IMHO. Again, I'm not opposing the message. I'm just not accepting it as part of the genetics project. DennisPietras (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Controversy
This section is empirically and provably false. It asserts, as a matter-of-fact, there are no genetically modified tomatoes – among other G.E. plants – which is absolutely not true and utter poppycock. This is why it was removed. Content sourced to the AgWeek opinion-piece making such claims must be rewritten, with due-weight, properly attributed and presented as an opinion of the author, and _not_ presented as if it were a fact – which it isn't; only then is inclusion acceptable. Onus rest upon those wishing for inclusion; clean it up, and it can stay. Barring that, it must be left out. -- dsprc   [talk]  21:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * None of those are commercially available. I'm not seeing any valid reason for the tag at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

formatting
I did some clean-up with regard to multiple links being used multiple times, but there is obviously more to do especially with the oddly nested "see also" refs such as Domingo, etal clumped in with multiple other refs within the same tag. Perhaps these are better suited in a 'Further Reading' section? It is also a bit strange to have such long quoted sections in this article, since it is about the NGP organization, not non-GM crops in general. Are these quotes truly needed if the source it clearly provided or would Template:R be a better way to include the information? (Skoot13 (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC))
 * Please keep in mind most of how the references work are locked in per WP:GMORFC. At the time (and still somewhat today) it was a very contentious topic that required all of that sourcing and formatting to spell it all out. That is also why the consensus language is there due to this being a WP:FRINGE organization. There at least does need to be something in the lede pertaining to that. Generally if we invoke the scientist consensus, all the language needs to be there.
 * That said, the whole process to that was cumbersome,and it shows. However, splitting the text from the citation info like I did in the most recent edit helps keep other content editing in the body from getting cluttered. KoA (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Honors English 250H VL1
— Assignment last updated by Smitc284 (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)