User talk:Groupuscule/GMO


 * Can we propose this Group for deletion?
 * This pages is clearly a campaign by anti-GMO campaigners and not about getting a good answer on scientific consensus - would we be having a debate about the scientific consensus of global climate change in the same manner? Science is science, and it is very well defined by replicated, peer reviewed research from diverse BUT relevantly knowledgeable (credible) sources.  The overwhelming weight of evidence (more than 1,000 studies) in rated, topic-relevant, peer reviewed journals by diverse (independent academic, commercial and government) sources clearly points to the safety of those GMO products which have been approved for use.  The very small, and ALL un-replicated, number of research claims otherwise are not evidence of a scientific disagreement.  And, those few making these "scientific" claims of safety concerns refuse to share their data and research protocols used to make their conclusions - acceptable standards to determine general agreement among the science community requires OPEN sharing of data and the manners in which conclusions are reached.CinagroErunam (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi CinagroErunam: I am not an "anti-GMO campaigner" and probably would not have become involved in the issue had I not seen Wikipedia's GMO pages repeatedly edited to promote the industry's viewpoint. The analysis currently presented here shows that the claim of "consensus" currently made at Genetically modified food controversies (and several other articles) is based on low-quality sources, some of which are badly misrepresented. You may notice that these sources still appear at that page and others. You have made some claims about the existing evidence; what is your opinion of the analysis I've presented here? For example: Do you agree with my finding that the 2004 NRC report suggests high risk for genetic engineering techniques than conventional agriculture? I hope we can eventually delete this page—but first we must actually discuss the issues it raises about current Wikipedia content. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why if Groupuscule is not political do the people running the site keep deleting the FDA statement on genetically modified foods? This article is not scientific nor interested in open discussion. Why is it allowed to exist in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice the III (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Maurice, thank you for moving to the talk page. As I have tried to explain in a recent update to the report, this page grew out of a sprawling discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies. I have deleted your changes myself, since they disrupt the flow of the report and are not very useful. You have said in your edit summary: "The FDA must review all submission using scientific processes". This statements is not really true, as you will see at this newly added section of the report. For more information see linked articles by Schuber & Freese formal publication less formal summary. The FDA does not actually review genetically modified crops because of a 1992 rule deeming them "substantially equivalent" to conventional foods. Part 2, just added, provides evidence that genetically modified organisms are not, in fact, "substantially equivalent" to their conventional counterparts, and that this permissive deregulation is based on false premises. If you are knowledgeable about this topic and/or willing to research it, I am eager to learn your more detailed opinion. Thank you again and welcome to Wikipedia. groupuscule (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)