Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms

This is a Request for Comment, conducted under discretionary sanctions issued by the Arbitration Committee, concerning how to indicate the scientific views on the safety of genetically modified crops for human consumption. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Introduction
Jump to comments section.

Purpose of this RfC
The following pages are affected by this RfC:


 * Genetically modified food controversies (lead and health section)
 * Genetically modified crops (lead and controversy section)
 * Genetically modified food (lead and health and safety section)
 * Genetically modified organism (controversy section)
 * Genetically modified canola (controversy section)
 * Genetically modified maize (controversy section)
 * Genetically modified soybean (controversy section)
 * March Against Monsanto (background section)
 * Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (lead)
 * Biotechnology (agriculture section)
 * Denialism (genetically modified foods section)

Each of these pages has language similar to: There is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis. Editors are generally dissatisfied with this wording, but disagree about how to revise it. This RfC presents options for content to replace that wording, and is intended to determine community consensus about that.

Specifically, you are asked to address two questions:

1. Based upon the policies, guidelines, and concepts related to scientific consensus, listed below, do the preponderance of reliable sources (see citations in the listed proposals) indicate that there is a scientific consensus about the safety of genetically modified food with respect to human health?

2. Should the existing language be changed, and which content proposal(s), if any, best represent the answer to question 1 for inclusion in the articles listed above?

Rules
Under the authority granted to Uninvolved Administrators and by the terms of the Arbitration Committee GMO case, and Standard Discretionary Sanctions as authorized by that case, the following limits are imposed on debate:


 * All editors are required to maintain a proper level of decorum. Unnecessary rudeness, hostility, casting aspersions, and battleground mentality will not be tolerated here, in the interest of arriving at a clear, fair-minded consensus. Inappropriate conduct may be met with warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in this RfC as the administrator deems necessary. To foster a collaborative atmosphere, editors are encouraged not to bring statements made here to Arbitration Enforcement, but rather to leave it to the patrolling admins.
 * The sole purpose of this RfC is to determine consensus about a specific question concerning article content. It is not a venue for personal opinions about GMOs in general, nor a place to relitigate past disputes.
 * All comments must be about article content or the content of users' proposals. Comments on any contributor, ad hominem, attacks, aspersions, or that are found in any other way to not conform to the standards prescribed herein, are prohibited.
 * Any violations of these restrictions will be reverted, removed, or redacted.
 * Violating editors will face blocks or discretionary sanctions, with or without warning and at the discretion of an administrator.
 * If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
 * If you believe that a user is violating policy or the rules set forth by Arbcom or by this page, and you cannot work it out between yourselves, please speak to an Enforcement admin at their talk page or at ANI, not here or on this RFC's talk page. If you believe an admin is behaving inappropriately, their decisions may be appealed to WP:ANI, WP:AE or Arbcom directly.
 * Please do not make changes in proposals that have already been posted. Anyone is permitted to post additional proposals, below the existing proposals.
 * Threaded discussion is prohibited on the RfC page. To comment in the RfC, you must create your own section within the Comments section, placing your username in the section header. Within your own section, you may present your opinions on the proposals, and briefly pose questions to other editors or respond to questions from other editors. Do not make "support" or "oppose" comments under each proposal; indicate these opinions instead within your own section. Do not make any edits in any other editor's section. A section may be edited only by the editor to whom it corresponds, and by enforcing administrators. Editors are encouraged to discuss and collaborate with one another on the RfC Talk page, where threaded discussion is permitted and there are no word limits.
 * In each comment section, each editor is strictly limited to 800 words, including replies to other editors. (Word Count Tool) There will be no exceptions. Excessively long statements will be hatted until shortened.
 * ,, and , have agreed to serve as a panel of three experienced, uninvolved editors who will close the RfC after 30 days and determine the consensus (if any). Because this is such a contentious area, the RfC will run for the full 30 days, unless additional time is needed to judge consensus, and closing early as per WP:SNOW is unlikely.
 * The consensus reached (if any) will be imposed as a Discretionary Sanction on the topic area, broadly construed. It may be overturned only by another widely published full 30-day RfC, a consensus of administrators at WP:AE, or by decree of the Arbitration Committee.


 * Nobody is required to participate in this RfC, and anybody may cease participation at any time for any reason. However, it is in everyone's best interest that we solicit a wide range of opinions so that we may achieve a strong consensus.
 * Finally, if you have issue with the moderating administrators' conduct or with these rules, we request that you please discuss with us on our own user talk pages before escalating. We are always willing to listen to a reasonable argument.

Administrators Moderating this Request for Comment

 * &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 20:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Background

 * First RfC (July–August 2013)
 * Second RfC (May–July 2015)
 * ArbCom GMO case (September–December 2015)
 * Initial formulation of RfC proposals (February–April 2016)
 * ArbCom discussion leading to this RfC (March–April 2016)

Policies, guidelines and essays to keep in mind

 * Discretionary Sanctions
 * Civility
 * BLP
 * Verifiability
 * NPOV
 * Fringe theories
 * Pseudoscience
 * Undue weight
 * Scientific consensus
 * Reliable sources (human health)
 * ArbCom GMO Case Decision: Principles 1–6

Proposal 8
Material amended 26 June 2016

Proposal 14
For completeness: None of the above, the existing language preferred.

Proposal 15
For RFC completeness: Replace with nothing, do a simplification of delete the existing line if it's really no good i.e. lacking WP:CONSENSUS on appropriate content or phrasing or even presence.

Proposal 23
Add new proposals below.

Comments
Return to Introduction.

Comments by Tryptofish
Yes, there are multiple mainstream reliable sources, written by authorities with no industry agendas, not geographically restricted, that state verbatim that there is "a scientific consensus" or "a broad scientific consensus". (They do not say merely "majority opinion".) Wikipedia should say so, plainly, with no resort to SYNTH, OR, or POV-pushing.


 * Proposal 1: Support, strongly, as only choice – by policy, not opinion. Encyclopedic, reliably sourced, and presents both "sides" in a balanced way. (It would be POV to present the first two sources in cite #4 – Domingo and Krimsky – without also presenting the second two.) We really do need to cite a lot of sources. No objection to deleting "nonetheless" (but oppose, as illogical, adding "some").
 * Proposal 2: Oppose. In trying to avoid using the phrase "scientific consensus", it implies that government regulatory decisions are what determine the science. It fails to communicate the fact that there are a lot of nations that ban GMOs.
 * Proposal 3: Oppose, strongly. An inconclusive sentence, copy-pasted word-for-word from the cited source, which isn't about the scientific community.
 * Proposal 4: Oppose, strongly. Overstates what the sources such as the British Medical Association actually say (compare same cites in Proposal 1). Misrepresents scientific review articles as being equally divided. Uses original research to categorize some approaches as American and others as European. Compare cite 12 here (which attributes dissenting science to work that was discredited) with cite 4 in Proposal 1 in terms of relative weight, and contrast how cite 1 in Proposal 1 is tossed awkwardly to a "See also 18." at the end of Proposal 4.
 * Proposal 5: Oppose. Similar to Proposal 1, but bites off too much by including farmers, environment, and consumers. Cite 8 actually partially contradicts the proposed text in terms of farms and farm yields.
 * Proposal 6: Oppose, mildly. Similar to Proposal 1, and written more smoothly, but says, contrary to sources, that GM food actually is tested before introduction, when sources say that such testing is not uniformly required.
 * Proposal 7: Oppose, strongly. Other proposals also cite WHO, but I cannot think of any valid reason for such lengthy quoting from a single source, to the exclusion of the UN or the Library of Congress, among many other reliable sources. "The WHO adds that..." makes the health information sound like an afterthought to the testing information, and it makes it sound misleadingly like there is no way to scientifically evaluate safety. In context, the source actually says that it is not possible to predict safety of future GMs.
 * Proposal 8: Oppose. Not well written. This is a topic where we really do need to base what we say on multiple sources.
 * Proposal 9: Oppose. The last two sentences seem WP:WEASELy to me.
 * Proposal 10: Oppose, strongly. Cites #1–4 do not say that this is a "majority" opinion, and "the science on health effects of GMOs is not fully resolved within the scientific community" is misleading, because it makes minor unresolved issues (per the majority of sources) sound like the science is completely unsettled.
 * Proposal 11: Oppose, mildly, because it fails to acknowledge scientific consensus.
 * Proposals 12 & 13: Oppose, strongly. Fail WP:DUE, and last sentence is overly vague. #13 also violates WP:CRYSTAL.
 * Proposal 14, aka current wording (no change): Oppose, strongly, per WP:WEASEL. Sources do not say "scientific agreement". The current wording varies from page to page.
 * Proposal 15: Oppose, strongly. It does not make sense to simply delete the content.
 * Proposals 16, 17, & 22: Oppose. I prefer language that will have to change only when and if sources dictate change, not language that will have to be revised every year. I don't like "jurisdiction", because most regulation is national, not local, and "expressed concern" seems too understated.
 * Proposal 18 & 19: Oppose, too verbose, no way to properly evaluate without sources, but the use of WP:ASOF is a good idea.
 * Proposal 20: Oppose, strongly. Retains most of the problems of #4, including overstating what sources say.
 * Proposal 21: Oppose, strongly. False equivalence, as with #10.

I've gone back and reviewed every source mentioned here by other editors, as dissenting from the scientific consensus, in arguments that we should not say "scientific consensus". In every case, reliable sources in Proposal 1 have accounted for these earlier sources in their analyses, and nonetheless concluded that there is, verbatim, a "scientific consensus". Showing dissenting sources does not disprove that consensus exists, and we cannot wish it away, even as an editorial compromise, because doing so would be original research. And Dr. Pamela Ronald (cite #3 in Proposal 1) is an acknowledged expert and a university professor, not working for industry, and secondary sources cite her scientific integrity. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Domingo (2016) now agrees with the consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Kingofaces43
There is a scientific consensus, proposal 1. In summary the sources adequately demonstrate scientific consensus according to Wikipedia policy, and appropriate weight is given to the scientific consensus and fringe views against it in proposal 1. Proposal 6 is similar, but environmental effects are outside the scope of this RfC and are handled separately in the relevant articles. The remaining proposals or no change are unacceptable as they avoid scientific consensus language to use terminology not in sources (e.g., general scientific agreement) and overstate non-mainstream science views that there is legitimate scientific questioning of the consensus in violation of the policies and guidelines above

Scientific consensus
The locus of the dispute is if there is a scientific consensus on the safety of consuming GM foods. WP:RS/AC policy is clear that we need sources explicitly stating this to have such content. In proposal 1, citations 1,2,3 as well as Yang in citation 4 explicitly state a scientific consensus (not just scientific agreement). All are WP:INDEPENDENT WP:MEDRS review articles or statements from scientific bodies fulfilling the requirements of RS/AC. These sources directly state this represents the conclusions of other major scientific organizations like the WHO and AAAS, and NAS. That's already plenty to say there is a consensus from sources (not just in the US) without any interpretation by us editors whatsoever.

To solidify this from a WP:WEIGHT perspective, many citations are implicit about the consensus language by providing the same idea using the same language about no increased risk and no records of harm in currently marketed foods due to being GM. Citations 5-20 are only small samples of what we can pull from for sourcing due to the broad scientific consensus. The American Association for the Advancement of Science citation sums this implicit support for the consensus term by saying that the European Union looking at the research of more than 500 independent research groups, says that GMOs are not riskier in terms of safety than conventional breeding while also saying, "The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion. . ." Yang specifically cites this as part of the scientific consensus. Note that these are not US-only statements.

WP:FRINGE views
That last phrase by AAAS is implicitly stating there is scientific consensus. Every respected organization. Remember scientific consensus does not imply unanimity. You can still have a scientific consensus when some individuals disagree. Those individuals or groups fall into what we call WP:FRINGE views where the larger scientific community does not consider the fringe views scientifically valid. Isolated papers often get past peer-review that can be cherrypicked by contrarians even when the scientific community doesn't take them seriously. Climate change denial is a great example where sources and organizations try to claim the state of the literature is undecided and cherrypick studies dismissed by the scientific consensus. Saying the studies cited in the RfC dispute this consensus would require removing consensus language in other articles like climate change.

At this point, individual reviews that take a fringe position against the consensus cannot be used to supersede consensus language used by higher level sources such as the AAAS, WHO, FAO, etc. They make it clear any debate still ongoing related to safety is now on the fringes of science rather than seriously considered by the scientific community. Domingo is cited by Yang, but still says there is a consensus. The Krimsky source also in 4 ,written by a non-expert in the field, is published in a too low-tiered journal to suggest such a 180 in scientific consensus, and Krimsky is on the editorial board of the journal. Plus, Krimsky endorses the sources in the Seralini affair, which are described as pseudoscientific. Since Krimsky is citing pseudoscience to say there isn't a scientific consensus, that does make saying there isn't a scientific consensus or obfuscating that scientists say there is a consensus conflict with WP:PSCI policy.

We also have sources giving appropriate weight to these fringe views (though reliable sources also often choose not to comment at all on fringe views). Citation 1 discusses issues with statistical methods and experimental design in studies trying to claim there are harmful effects, and that media and anti-GMO groups try to make publicity out of these studies. Yang in citation 4 also covers these sentiments. Panchin in citation 5 covers one of the statistical flaws (false positives) in specific studies, while also pointing out issues in the small pool of literature claiming detrimental effects as a whole. Citations 13-14 also discuss how the overall public is incorrectly out of line with what scientists think on the subject, hence the "Nonetheless" language. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by MjolnirPants
I support Proposal 1, and oppose the others for a variety of reasons. There is, in fact, a scientific consensus that GMO foods are no less safe than non-GMO foods. The views of scientists on any subject are not monolithic, and while public perception has given much (undue) weight to the views of those few scientists who oppose this position, consensus is not determined by the side with the louder voice, but by the side with the preponderance of evidence, and the more useful theories. The arguments put forth by the most knowledgeable opponents of GMO foods are all arguments which apply equally to non-GMO foods, with the sole caveat that we have had non-GMO foods long enough to have done long-term studies on their effects. This fact, however, is addressed and acknowledged by the consensus view. It does not change the fact that we (humanity) have, as yet, discovered no mechanism unique to GMO foods by which they might cause harm that has not been thoroughly debunked (for example, claims that the genetic material in GMO foods might cause major mutations in those consuming it). MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  18:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by JzG
Interesting range of options here. I would say that 5 is actually clearest to read and I find it substantially equivalent to 1, which is the most accurate in that it does not overstate the extent of reservations of scientific bodies (hint: saying long-term monitoring is a good idea is not the same thing as saying there is any remotely plausible level of risk; also the BMA is first and foremost a trade union and its opinions are based on the votes of a collection of former medical students, it is not really a scientific body of the type that the Royal Society of Canada is). Guy (Help!) 21:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Capeo

 * 1: The best choice. Best reflects the preponderance of sources and is succinct and to the point.
 * 2: Muddled. There's no point in quoting one source though it is a good source.  Also seems to purposely avoid the term "scientific consensus" when that term is used throughout the best presented sources.
 * 3: Frankly silly. The source used doesn't even talk about the scientific community's conclusions about GMOs.
 * 4: Possibly worse than 3 as it confuses regulatory recommendations with scientific papers. There is no American approach or European approach to scientific research.  It also tries to use Krimsky to say, well, anything in regards to the scientific consensus about GMO safety.  The paper uses cherry picked research, references thoroughly discredited research as though it should be considered, and doesn't rise to the level of comprehensiveness required of a review.  It barely looks at the body research and comes to a conclusion Krimsky has been pushing publicly for years now in an activist capacity rather than a scientific one.
 * 5: Just too much. There's a vast difference between assessing the risks of eating GMOs and the potential risk for a native ecology.  It's really nearly two different fields of science.  The potential risks are quite different, would use far different sources than provided (again too many regulatory bodies rather than scientific papers), and should be dealt with separately.  My understanding is this RFC is specifically about the question of the safety of eating GMOs.
 * 6: Is simply false. Not every GMO in every country requires certain testing parameters.  Regulations vary wildly. Capeo (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 7 & 8: There is no need to single out the WHO's recommendations on the matter in this context. Not to mention they agree with scientific consensus hence 1 is still best.
 * 9: Not better than 1. Nonetheless makes more sense.
 * 10: No better than 1.
 * 11: Would be my second choice at this point but needlessly wordy in comparison to 1.
 * 12 & 13: Overt weasel wording. Capeo (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 14 & 15: There is no consistent wording across all articles so there's no point it doing nothing.
 * 16 - 19: We don't date scientific consensus. That's the worst kind of equivocation. You might as well say "this is scientific consensus but the scientists are wrong and that will be shown shortly when some new research comes out".
 * 20-22: No. For the reasons as 12-19. Weaseling and dating consensus. Capeo (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's important because the whole GMO conflict stems from public reactions not scientific ones yet it's an undeniable part of a half decent article about GMOs. Also, and, shouldn't this section also not be threaded?  Or even exist really?  A random, threaded comment section has a high probability of becoming a wasteland of conflict. Or is the idea that the comment section should be partioned by editor?  Capeo (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Insertcleverphrasehere

 * 1: Support strongly; Reflects the sources the best and says just enough without going off on too many tangents.
 * 2: Oppose weakly; Avoiding the use of scientific consensus results in an unclear and meandering paragraph. The second sentence for example is an obvious statement with no apparent reason for being in the proposal.
 * 3: Oppose as strongly as possible Completely useless proposal without merit. This is the equivalent of throwing up our hands and saying "it can't be done".
 * 4: Oppose; Creates a EU vs. American governmental regulation GM debate instead of focusing on what the scientific consensus is.
 * 5: Oppose; "There are benefits to farmers, the environment, and consumers,[9][10][11] and evidence of harm caused by delays in adoption of genetically modified crops.[12]" is very POV-ish. While these statements are true, the opposite statements are also partially true as well (for example there is almost certainly harm to organic or non-GM farmers as well as the environment as a result of hybridisation between GM and unmodified crops/plants). Subsequent sentences only vaguely address this POV drift. It is better not to have this as part of the proposal.
 * 6: Strong Oppose; Contains false information, Per 's arguments above. Moreover, the first sentence's aversion to the use of 'scientific consensus' results in a statement of fact without attribution, which may be challenged on the basis of one or more individual sources that claim the opposite.
 * 7: Oppose as it is reliant on a single source, the WHO, and does not expand enough on the other implications of the safety of GMOs, scientific consensus, or GM regulations, as #1 does. And #1 has a sentence that represents the majority of what is said here anyway, but sums it up better "but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction."
 * 8: Oppose; Weak sourcing, relies too much on the WHO as #7 does.
 * 9: Weak support; This is OK, but does not flow very well, sounds choppy and is not as easy to read as #1. Would prefer #1, although the removal of 'nonetheless' as suggested by others from #1 would be ok.
 * 10: Oppose; Overall no substantial improvement over #1. the only differences are avoiding 'scientific consensus' in favour of 'the majority of scientific studies', and the addition of "the science on health effects of GMOs is not fully resolved within the scientific community" which is a vacuous statement that will always be true, of nearly any controversial topic.
 * 11: Strong Oppose; The first sentence suffers from the same problem of #6, making wikipedia into a source of fact, rather than citing 'scientific consensus' instead this proposal and #6 state this as fact. This is rather inappropriate.
 * 12-13: Oppose; second sentence is deliberately WP:Weasely, suggesting that 'maybe' there might be long term effects or that the issue isn't 'fully settled', when the science says the opposite. Clearly not the sort of thing that belongs in the proposal (per WP:DUE). The last sentence is needlessly vague when compared with proposal #1, another reason for opposing it.
 * 14: Oppose existing wording as weasely and unspecific, as well as not providing enough context or sources.
 * 15: Strongly Oppose, this isn't how consensus works, and moreover there seems to be a consensus that #1 or a slight variation thereof is the best choice.
 * 16or17: Support Strongly, as better than #1; like the 'as of 2016' bit, as from an editorial standpoint it makes it less likely that the baby will be thrown out with the bath water following this RfC or that this RfC will be used to railroad new information that comes to light. If something new comes about later is can be added easily given this wording. The rest of the changes are a clear improvement over #1. More concise and still flows naturally, either is fine, no preference.
 * 18&19: Weak support, needs to have the citations added, 18 is overlong.
 * 21 Oppose as it gives undue weight to a couple of review articles, while ignoring the vast majority of scientific research on the matter.

Overall I prefer #16 or 17 with #1 as second choice, with #9, 18 & 19 as other options. Oppose the others.

InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Petrarchan47
Words: 785 ''The first question of this RfC asks if "the preponderance of reliable sources indicate that there is a scientific consensus", in conflict with WP:RS/AC: "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors". Also note this RfC is not about finding concise language, but language that is supported by the sources.''

Proposition 1 - problems with the three sources used for "scientific consensus" language (or, why SYNTH is disallowed)


 * 1) Nicolia, 2013:
 * also says "the debate is still intense"


 * [ Jennings, 2015] on Nicolia:
 * "just over 300 [of the 1,700] of these papers etc. are concerned with animal health or unintended effects"
 * "overlooked a number of important studies indicating significant hazards to health"


 * 2) FAO, 2003: authors also express caution:
 * "not enough is known about the long-term effects...difficult to detect"
 * "many confounding factors...may be more difficult to assess and may increase the possibility of unintended effects"


 * 3) Ronald, 2011
 * not a strong enough source for the "scientific consensus" claim; should be used only with attribution, not in WP's voice
 * cannot be considered neutral; known as "one of the most effective advocates for genetic engineering",* and as the "public face of GMOs"*
 * work was retracted after it could not be replicated; Ronald initially denied problems, finally retracting the papers that formed the backbone of her work, leaving her lab "at square one"**

Proposition 1 ignores equally strong sources with opposite conclusions:


 * IAASTD, 2008 (under the auspices of five UN agencies, the World Bank and the W.H.O.) Just as powerful as FAO, yet more recent; looked to settle the debate on GMO safety, finding there is no consensus:
 * "lingering doubts about the adequacy of efficacy and safety testing, or regulatory frameworks for testing GMOs"
 * "Assessment of biotechnology is lagging behind development; information can be anecdotal and contradictory"
 * "uncertainty on benefits and harms is unavoidable"
 * "wide range of perspectives"


 * British Medical Association, 2004 concluded:
 * "sale of GM foods currently available should be halted...based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit"
 * "expressed concern over...potential health effects"


 * Domingo 2016
 * "in spite of the notable increase in the available information, studies on the long-term health effects of GM plants, including tests of mutagenicity, teratogenicity and carcinogenicity seem to be still clearly necessary"; also per Cathry


 * Ronald's counterparts


 * Bruce Blumberg:
 * "The science on these GMOs is not settled by a long shot"*


 * Dave Schubert, Cellular Neurobiology head, Salk Institute:
 * "The claim that there is a consensus among scientists that GM food products are safe ... is simply a PR campaign ... the industry is making a major public relations effort to promote itself, often falsely claiming that there is a "consensus" among scientists that the technology is safe. In reality, there is no evidence that GM food is safe for human consumption, nor is there any consensus on this topic within the scientific community"*


 * Steven Druker
 * Attorney Steven Druker sued and received internal FDA documents that show the agency ignored their own scientists' warnings, and early on decided to promote the biotech industry. According to Druker, the "FDA broke th[e] law and lied about the facts in order to get GMOs on the market", and that "contrary evidence has been suppressed, research showing risks is attacked unfairly, the scientists who did the research have had their reputations destroyed".* He recently gave a public lecture to Cornell's Alliance’s Global Leadership Fellows Program on the case against GM foods.*

Support Proposals:


 * 15 - Best option: 'Replace with nothing if existing language lacks consensus'. Note: existing language was not the result of consensus, but was the default replacement for "scientific consensus" after RfC2 found that phrase was unsupported. Only two editors were active on the talk page at the time, the rest were exhausted from the RfC. Therefore, P14 is not an option. After removing unsupported language, community should consider each source individually, resorting to simpler RfCs, if needed. Once sources are added, a summary statement will emerge effortlessly and can then be added to all related articles. But there is no need to lock science into place, as the GMO suite has been peaceful since ArbCom.


 * 7 - A near-direct quotation from the W.H.O. best meets NPOV, does not involve SYNTH or OR, and stays within the narrow confines of this RfC (GMO safety, not bans and public opinion)


 * 10 - An accurate summary of the sources used in Proposition 1; if it is assumed those sources represent the best of available literature, and NPOV, then P10 is an excellent choice


 * 4 - A neutral, accurate, well-rounded review of the literature; also per Reidgreg and Johnfos


 * No support or neutral on all others   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   11:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by My very best wishes
Support #1 with 2nd phrase removed
 * Version 1 looks best, but I suggest to exclude 2nd phrase "Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe". I do not think this is so important. For a casual reader, this phrase sounds questionable and advocating something. I also do not like expression "food is safe". Food is not safe. Taking food leads to obesity and many other diseases. Saying "poses no greater risk" is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw. It's not that "the science on health effects of GMOs is not resolved within the scientific community". It is the fact that both "natural" and GMO foods may have positive and negative effects on the human health (this is fact, this is proven), and these effects are under scientific study - there are lots of publications on the subject. I agree that it should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by David Tornheim

 * Please compare the above proposals with what is on Monsanto's website:
 * Please compare the above RS with what is on Monsanto's website:

The RS does NOT show "scientific consensus"
A number of editors have stated the WP:RS shows a "scientific consensus" on GMO safety and support proposals that give NO VOICE to the abundant high quality RS of scientists that shows a different perspective (asserting: assessment is insufficient, GMOs create unique concerns, long term studies are necessary). We must give due proportion to voices that disagree.

It's true that a number of major American orgs have made strong assertions about GM safety (see  Proposal 4 and this RS). Sources claiming consensus do not agree on language:  See Tsavage's comments.

The scientific reviews articles of GMO food safety do not support a "scientific consensus". (See Krimsky. ) Under WP:MEDRS, scientific review articles are the highest most reliable sources. Even if you disregard Krimsky's credentials for toxicology, one need only look at the reviews he refers to: GMO's as Generally recognized as safe:
 * (1) Nicolia says the scientific consensus is "research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard" (not what is in the Proposal 1).
 * (2) Snell

Unclear:
 * (1) EFSA 2012

Clear concerns about GM studies noted:
 * (1) Domingo
 * (2) Dona
 * (3) Magana-Gomez
 * (4) Bawa
 * (5) Maghari
 * (6) Zhang

Ronald is cited in Prop. 1 as a review, but it is not a toxicology review, and she is a pro-GMO advocate.

See This discussion.

American v. E.U.
Many editors seem troubled why Proposal 4 speaks of the difference in the American vs. EU approaches to regulating GMO food safety. That is because it is all over the RS, including the scientific literature, such as Domingo. Emily Marden's and Rebecca Bratspies' work on this is exceptional. See also this discussion with more RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"Nonetheless, the public"
In answer to your question, why do proposals and our articles say:  "Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe"? Easy. This is the standard PR. If scientists are all in agreement that GMO's are so safe, then there is a problem:  How can one explain that 64 countries require labeling, that 93% of Americans want GMOs labelled, or that many countries have various bans , restrictions and heavy regulation of GMOs [see Proposal 4]? Although ordinary readers won't find such facts in our articles (they are well-hidden), readers may have come across them elsewhere and be confused about why a country might ban GMOs, if GMOs are indeed so safe. The answer: Imply that any concern about GMO safety is from extremists  and people who don't understand the science. . And, no, I do not support such arrogance in our articles. I wrote Proposal 4 and stand behind it. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments on Proposals
--David Tornheim (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposal 1: No. Better than most proposals claiming "scientific consensus"; however, not NPOV because of this.
 * Proposal 2: Strong No  The first sentence is not correct.  Substantial equivalence  is true for the U.S., Canada & some other countries, but the E.U. and other countries use different systems following the Precautionary Principle and Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
 * Proposal 4: Yes.  WP:NPOV.  revised as Proposal 20 after considering editor feedback here and on talk page.
 * Proposal 5: Okay.  More representative of the literature than others.  I would leave sentence 2 out about the farmers.
 * Proposal 6: No.  Information is incorrect.  Explained:
 * Proposal 8: Slight No.  Better than proposals that claim a "scientific consensus", but overstates Nicolia leaving out RS like Domingo/Krimsky.
 * Proposal 9: No.  Not an improvement over Proposal 1.
 * Proposal 10: Yes.  NPOV.
 * Proposal 11: No position:  Discussed here.
 * Proposal 20: Yes Yes.  NPOV.  Revised/simplified Proposal 4.

Consensus is not the same as Majority or General Agreement
It can have that meaning, but not necessarily:
 * It can also mean near unanimity: Consensus_decision-making.

Consensus typically has an element that suggests the whole is completely involved in the decision and their views have been accommodated into the decision and all dissent considered and addressed.

Comment by Aircorn
Support proposal 1

Editors are being asked to evaluate many sources in this proposal and they each serve an important purpose in its structure. However, for me the strongest and clearest has been the 2012 statement from the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the publisher of the science journal and an organisation at the top of reliability when it comes to information on science). The key phrasing being:

The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.

That is a pretty clear statement for "scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food". You could not ask for a better secondary source for the views of respected science organisations. The most recent documentation on this issue comes from the National Academy of Sciences (publishers of PNAS) and further supports this consensus. It also handily sums up the views of 6 other organisations, including the AAAS, WHO, European Commission and FDA. This is probably a better source as it was published in 2016 and is more thorough.

The WHO statement in proposal 7 does not contradict proposal 1 and is in fact used as a reference for the case-by-case part sentence. Saying GM food currently on the market is as safe as the equivalent conventional food and that new GM food should be tested on a case-by-case basis is not mutually exclusive.

I was one of the editors that suggested the addition of the public perception, and as that has been queried I will give my justification. There is a big difference between the public view and the scientific view when it comes to the safety of GM food. I feel that these should be presented together as the public views drive the articulation of the scientific ones and vice versa. If the two views were aligned we would not need to point to the scientific one so obviously and there would be much less conflict in these articles. As said by Capeo above, most decent articles which mention the scientific viewpoint should also mention the contradicting public one.

I oppose the other statements for much the same reasons as Tryptofish and others above. I oppose proposal 7 as it focuses too much on a single source, one that is already neatly summarised and referenced in proposal 1. We are looking for a succinct summary statement of the scientific and other views on GM safety and presenting a quote does not do this.

Also scientific consensus does not mean scientific unanimity, otherwise there would never be a scientific consensus on anything. That some scientists disagree with this consensus does not negate it. It should also be noted that most dissenting scientists (including Domingo) do not say that GM food is unsafe, but that it needs more testing before it can be said to be safe. AIR corn (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposals 8 through 11 have been added since I last commented. I don't find eight very clear and it places too much emphasis on the WHO. Proposal 9 is pretty much the same as proposal 1 so I have no problem with it although I would prefer the sources to be on the articles page as that is where readers would expect to find them. Proposal 10 has weighting problems as it gives Krimsky, Bawa and Anilakumar the same weight as the NAS and other institutes I mentioned above. I do like 11 and even thought about proposing something similar during the development phase. Personally I feel the strength of sources is strong enough to say this as fact (see WP:INTEXT), but giving the controversial nature of the issue here and in the general public it is probably best to attribute this statement to scientists. AIR corn (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Collect
I am not addressing this as being more than an attempt to provide clear and accurate "boiler-plate" for various articles related to GMOs. Thus I regard clarity to the reader of Wikipedia as being essential. The use of "nonetheless" is, alas, argumentative, as I discuss below. Collect (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Takes four lines and 16 cites to thoroughly confuse any reader. It is certainly "well-sourced" but surely "helpful and readily understood by the user" is important, though I may be in a minority.
 * Still uses "nonetheless" and is more argumentative and, amazingly, less clear than 1. Unreadable and certainly far from "neutral wording."
 * Wow.
 * No pretense of neutral wording, and both long and unreadable. If the purpose is to provide a simple and accurate boiler-plate statement, no.
 * Uses "However" and "nonetheless" which better readability than 4, it is still hard to use as a general piece of boiler-plate.
 * Makes Wikipedia itself the "fact" source for safety of GMOs, and again uses "nonetheless" which is intrinsically an argumentative term. You may now infer that I consider "nonetheless" to be the same type of comment as "these folks are wrong, and we are making sure the reader knows they are wrong."
 * Accurately sourced and cites the WHO - but misses the bit about public opinion entirely.
 * Is an attempt to be brief (which is a great idea for boiler-plate, except for lawyers), covers the WHO position (albeit more tersely than 7) and in absolutely neutral about judging the opinions of the general populace, wihout implying that the general populace is actually correct.
 * Supportable if "citation overkill" (which clearly some people love) is substantially reduced.
 * Manages to move further away from usable boiler-plate, alas,  and keeps the argumentative "nonetheless" to boot.
 * Gosh - 20 cites and using "however" and/or "nonetheless" does not make the boilerplate simple by a mile, and will confuse just about everyone who reads it, which I suppose some welcome :(
 * Same.
 * Plus ca change

@Jbhunley:
 * perhaps
 * Most organizations which have studied GMO foods find that there is no added risk to human health. They agree that it is prudent to test new GMO foods. Members of the general public appear to have greater doubts about the food safety issues. Different countries have different rules concerning such foods and their distribution.
 * Which would shorten 1, and, in my opinion, be sufficiently clear for readers. Collect (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Jbhunley
What do you think of simply striking "nonetheless" in Proposal #1. There is no need to use it as a connective and two simple declarative sentences are clear. So the wording would be: "" The "however" I added can be struck, I just think it flows better but nothing is lost by its removal. Also, I believe that the over citation is just for purposes of discussion here and are not intended for the final statement but it is worth clairifying. J bh Talk  18:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that that wording waters things down too much. Also, #1 seems to have the most support here so I prefer to stay close to its wording/intent. Perhaps: ""

J bh Talk  21:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe you wrote #1? Will the citation count be cut down in the final boilerplate form? I think that 1 or two cites would be sufficient and improve readability. The other posibility is to create a citation page as a sub-page of this RfC and link back to it. (See above for an example) This would vastly improve the readability of the text once it is put into articles. It would also be a way of indicating that the text is "fixed" by RfC. J bh  Talk  16:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Support in order of preference
In general all of these suffer from citation overload. One or, at most two, good references should be selected for each point. A more in depth analysis of the references should be placed in a sub page or FAQ for readers who want more information. Prop #9 has an example of how this might be done.
 * 1. 17
 * 2. 16

Either of the above would be best. They are not overly complex and get the point across to the common reader. Both explicitly cite scientific consensus which is key to any statement chosen.
 * 3. 01
 * 4. 09

The above two are technically more accurate but seem to be more concerned with addressing conflict within the editing community rather than making a clear statement for the common reader who does not care about wiki-conflicts.
 * Last edited 16:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Montanabw
Given the state of the systemic reviews that have been published through 2015, notably Krimsky 2015, Hilbeck et al., 2015, I concur with the statement in Krimsky, “One cannot read these systematic reviews and conclude that the science on health effects of GMOs has been resolved within the scientific community.” Thus, I am concerned that this statement not be overbroad; the reality is that when a search is confined only to the last five years, things are actually a bit more in question than they were 5-10 years ago. So:
 * Proposal 1: Disfavor as overbroad the first statement "There is a scientific consensus[1][2][3][4] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." The rest isn't too bad, though I'd also add one caveat to a later sentence. I would be more comfortable if the first sentence read, "A majority of scientific studies[1][2][3][4] hold that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food..." and that the sentence "Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe." be revised to read "Nonetheless, the science on health effects of GMOs is not resolved within the scientific community, and members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe."  I think that states the current state of the research more accurately.
 * Proposal 2: Nope, both too wordy and overbroad.  The statement "there is no evidence to date of harm caused by eating GM food" is misleading, as there clearly is some evidence.
 * Proposal 3: True.  Boring and non-specific, but true.
 * Proposal 4: Too wordy, but I think the most accurate statement of the bunch. Be nice to streamline it a bit, though, don't like all the detail.
 * Proposal 5: Similar problems to Proposal 1, and wordier.
 * Proposal 6: No, far too, "nothing to worry about, now move along" in tone.
 * Proposal 7: Too narrow in quoting only the WHO, but not as objectionable as 5 or 6.
 * Proposal 8 and 9: Not improvements over any of the others

I put my suggestion into a proposal 10 to modify proposal 1, though so many people have commented already that I'm not sure earlier commenters will have a chance to look at it. Montanabw (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Opabinia
Note: I am recused as an arb from matters arising from the GMO case.


 * 1) Support. Clear, succinct, reflects the sources well. Effectively communicates the key point that perceptions among the general public diverge from educated scientific opinion. Focuses on food safety without getting distracted by other issues.
 * 2) Weak oppose. Not too bad, but gives too much weight to the decisions of regulatory bodies rather than to the scientific sources.
 * 3) Obvious oppose. Not serious.
 * 4) Strong oppose. Too long; gives false equivalence to sources of uneven strength to present the appearance of a divided scientific community; overrelies on the political/regulatory aspects of the situation; overstates the (real) distinction between American and European regulatory approaches. Relegates a good source (Nicolia 2013) to an awkward parenthetical. Prominently features two papers of dubious quality (Krimsky 2015, Domingo 2012), which are treated in a much more balanced manner in proposal 1.
 * 5) Oppose. Biting off more than it can chew. This statement should stay tightly focused on food safety; the subject is complex enough without also cramming in statements about environmental and economic effects. Source 12 is poor (a video of a non-peer-reviewed talk, though one given by a Nobelist).
 * 6) Oppose. A non-starter as written; it is factually inaccurate to state that GM food "is tested on a case-by-case basis". With that statement corrected, could be a reasonable alternative to Proposal 1.
 * 7) Strong oppose. Overreliance on a single source.
 * 8) Strong oppose. Too few sources; fails to give a balanced overview of the relevant literature.
 * 9) Weak oppose. Not really an improvement over Proposal 1. "Members of the general public have greater doubts..." - written as if this describes all members, when it means that members of the public are more likely to have doubts. "Different countries have different rules" sounds like a children's book.
 * 10) Strong oppose. The claim that the science "is not fully resolved" is much too strong given the sourcing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Weak support. The phrase "needs to be tested" in Wikipedia's voice, as opposed to reporting a scientific consensus in proposal 1, is mildly irritating, but acceptable as a second choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Same problem as proposal 13. Missed this one, added on 20:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. The "further study" clause is incongruously sourced to a 2004 report.
 * 14) Oppose. (That is, oppose current wording.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong oppose. Just no.
 * 16) Weak oppose. I prefer proposal 1's wording, which emphasizes the statistical nature of the observation: "members of group X are more likely to say Y" is different from "group X says Y".
 * 17) Weak oppose. Same reason as 16.
 * 18) Oppose. The first sentence is too strong. The phrase "has become prevalent among some members" is unclear. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Same reason as #18. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong oppose Unnecessary national focus, WP:WEASEL, not improved over #4.
 * 21) Strong oppose Leads with "unsafe", obvious NPOV violation.
 * 22) Weak oppose "As of" statement implies likelihood of future changes, which is not consistent with the evidence. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Brief comments on sources:
 * Krimsky 2015: it is very clear that Krimsky is not conversant with the literature in molecular biology and genetics at the level needed to evaluate the science. This paper describes a notable view, but is not reliable in scientific terms.
 * Domingo 2011: Published pre-Seralini affair, this paper extensively cites Seralini's earlier work to reach a conclusion at odds with most other reviews of the literature. It is worth citing, but must be placed in the context of the broader literature. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Domingo 2016: Conveniently, Domingo has published a new paper (see talk page) agreeing with the consensus view that the use of the assessed GM plants for feed or human food should be as safe as that of their parental species, with the recommendation of further long-term study. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by ThePlatypusofDoom

 * 1) Support Is solid, reflects the scientific consensus.
 * 2) Weak Support Is accurate, factual
 * 3) Strong Oppose Just the lazy person's way of not mentioning the subject.
 * 4) Oppose Isn't very good, doesn't display the scientific consensus.
 * 5) Neutral I really have no feelings about this one
 * 6) Neutral Not that bad, not that good.
 * 7) Weak Oppose it could be better, but it's okay.
 * 8) Oppose not a good piece of writing, could be better.
 * 9) Weak Support not as good as 1, but it is decent.
 * 10) Oppose not very good, too much weight on non-scientific opinions.

ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Everymorning
In my opinion, there is a scientific consensus on GMOs being no more harmful to health than their conventional counterparts, and, accordingly, I think Proposal 5 is the best option here. Further evidence I feel supports the explicit "consensus" wording in proposal 5 can be found in the following links: this paper, this NAP report summarized here by NBC News, and this poll. Everymorning (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Rhoark
"True according to scientific consensus" is as close to simply "true" as can be achieved outside of pure math, so WP:ASSERT, WP:YESPOV, etc. No need to count the number of papers published or drill down to what the AMA says or the WHO says at this high summary level. State the facts, state there are disagreeing opinions, and game on. Proposal 6 is the only one to handle this correctly. Proposal 5 has a good point that there are health benefits in some cases. I created a Proposal 11 as a hybrid of 5 and 6. Rhoark (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by GoldenRing
Support 9 I share others concern about the joining word in proposal 1. I find the sources offered against the consensus position unpersuasive - in particular Krimsky. In addition to concerns about its treatment of Seralini raised by User:Opabinia regalis, its treatment of Pusztai is also rather suspect. In particular, this section "The principal conclusions were published in The Lancet on October 16, 1999. In brief, the authors reported that the rats fed on the GM diet, compared to controls, grew less well, exhibited unusual changes in their tissue, and were found to have immune problems, which did not occur when the rats were fed free GNA lectin proteins." I struggle to read this any way other than that Ewen & Pusztai's letter to The Lancet reported growth and immune problems in rats fed GM potatoes; but the letter in fact said nothing of the sort (I don't know of a link to the text of the letter that wouldn't be a copyvio or I'd link it here directly). Indeed, a good deal of the controversy occurred because those claims were made before publication, when the publication made no such claims. GoldenRing (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dig Deeper
Proposal #1 articulates the scientific evidence the best. With topics like this, where public opinion is somewhat at odds with scientific consensus, I find it helpful to compare it to the global warming or vaccine articles. Despite all the news articles in the popular press about how some organizations and famous people feel differently, the scientific consensus in the peer reviewed journals (usually reliable secondary sources) dominates the article. Dig Deeper (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Colonel Wilhelm Klink
In my opinion, Proposal 1 provides the best presentation of the subject; it is well sourced, provides a sufficient but not overcomplicated explanation of the topic, and deals with both sides of the argument in a manner which neither favors or opposes one over the other. As has been pointed out above, Proposal 2 has quite a few issues, including an emphasis on government opinions over scientific findings; it would need some sort of expansive rewrite to become acceptable. Proposal 3 is... well, yeah, no. This issue needs much more than just a passing mention.

Proposal 4 comes across like this: American groups say GMOs are fine, non-US groups say GMOs are not fine, and international groups say it's not their problem. This obviously isn't the case; many American groups oppose GMOs, and many non-American groups support them. Additionally, the lack of citations to scientific sources and an overall complicated structure makes this a rather poor choice. Proposal 5 is better, but it seems to lean a bit towards the argument for GM, particularly with the "benefits to farmers..." bit, so I am inclined to oppose it. Proposal 6, as was mentioned, is factually inaccurate; on top of this, it seems to paint the public opinion on the subject as unfounded and overreactionary ("Nonetheless, in spite of this scientific consensus on safety", those fools still don't understand the facts).

Proposal 7 is okay, but could use more sources, particularly to scientific journals; Proposal 8 seems reasonable as well, though it would ideally be lengthier. Proposal 9 would be another good choice; given that it is a rewording of Proposal 1, the only real difference between the two lies in presentation rather than quality, so I really don't favor one over the other. I'm rather indifferent to Proposal 10, as goes for Proposal 11; though they're not bad options, they certainly could be better.

In conclusion, Proposal 1 seems the best way to go, though with the improvement of existing options or the addition of new proposals as this discussion continues, nothing is final as of yet. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 23:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Changing my position to support for Proposal 10, as it seems to be the best of the options which do not assume in either direction as to whether scientific consensus has or hasn't been established. See this talk page section for more info. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 20:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Summary:
 * Support: 10, 12
 * Oppose: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19
 * Neutral, leaning towards support: 1, 13
 * Neutral, leaning towards oppose: 4, 9, 11, 18, 20

Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 20:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by CFCF

 * Strong oppose 3, 7, 8, 10 on grounds they do not represent the subject in a neutral fashion. Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 23:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support proposal 18. It conveys the nature of the scientific evidence properly balancing the opposition against GMO against it. Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 09:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Rhododendrites
I'm planning to take my time on this one. I did some research of my own a while back, but not enough, and certainly not all of the sources presented here. I'll start with those proposals that seem obvious to me and come back periodically as I get around to reviewing their respective citations. As an opinion on a particular proposal crystallizes, I'll bold it. Those not in boldtext should be considered tentative (and, for simplicity's sake, probably discounted if we reach the end of 30 days and they haven't gone bold). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposal 1 - Support - Most closely represents my understanding of the sources. I don't think the word "nonetheless" is necessary to retain the same meaning, though.


 * Proposal 3 - Oppose - woefully inadequate.
 * Proposal 4 - Oppose - the international aspect seems a bit overplayed here, in the sense of the extent to which the statement focuses on the differences rather than on the subject itself, as well as the way it emphasizes (intentionally or not) the degree and content of the disagreement rather than approach and confidence).
 * more later

Comments by Carrite
Oppose all proposals. Current wording is succinct, not burdened by the stacked footnotes characteristic of POV pushing, and accurate. There is no scientific evidence that GMO crops on the market today pose any greater threat to human health than their non-GMO equivalents. Full stop. Carrite (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Markbassett
Generally disagree with trying to mandate one answer to all pages, however I will offer some comments.

Question 1: No, scientific consensus is not shown. Cites show a variety of strong supports from variety of bodies of medical or scientific nature. Factually that it is multiple instead of a single cite or a body makes it clear this is not scientific consensus of actual measured opinion of a specified scientific community. Say it as it is, a strong support from numerous health and science groups. On a sidenote, the collection of disparate sources of support or criticism seems a bit improper, a WP:SYNTH.

Question 2: Revise to appropriate WEIGHT on situation and public view. The language of proposals 4 and 10is somewhat better sticking to the facts and provides summary. (Proposal 7 and 8 seem seeking to be factual as well, but are more limited by being only WHO.) But they seem to give undue WP:WEIGHT to 'scientific' viewpoint and to shortchange and misstate overall regulation and public view. Proposal 4 has no content of those, so it highlights scientific bodies and nothing else. Proposal 10 makes some remarks but puts it behind, less in amount, and misstated as the 'public are much less likely' does not convey the situation 'does not perceive them as safe', and 'varies by country' seems inaccurately conveying 'regulated in most nations'. Could use some more cites of the public view and regulatory status, if any exist, but if not then go with just follow the cites and state what is available more accurately and in due weight. Is seems not like March Against Monsanto has AAAS message directed specifically to them or at the event, nor would AAAS statement be getting coverage in articles on the march of greater weight than the protestors views, so why would they get weight there ??? Markbassett (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Chris troutman
None of these proposals are acceptable to me. The current wording is fine as-is. I think the stated desire to address varied viewpoints is wrong-headed, generally. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Fieari
I generally support proposal 1, with weaker support for the various variations proposed for proposal 1. I generally object to the other proposals which deny or downplay scientific consensus. I support the additional comment in proposal 1 (and variations) that state that public perception is in contrast with the scientific consensus.

I would also like to comment on the idea to reduce "reference spam" or "overreferencing". I agree that having [8][9][10][11][12][ad nauseum] after every sentence is distracting and obnoxious to read, but I disagree about putting all the references on a seperate page to be linked. Instead, I would prefer using various coding tricks I've seen on other articles to have a single reference number that pops up a box that then contains the list of all references as needed. With this in mind, I would not mind us adding even MORE references, as many as might be useful to anyone that, for example, might be writing an academic paper on the subject. Fieari (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Count Iblis
Proposal 1 looks like the best proposal to me. A general problem in this topic area is that there is that a large fraction of the European public is opposed on ideological grounds without there being a sound scientific motivation for this opposition. This opposition feeds back into reliable sources as people elect governments who then will make laws to which the industry will have to stick to. A lot of the scientific research commissioned by the governments has to do with reconciling the requirements of the laws with the science, this gives a misleading picture of the safety issues, which in turn has the effect of amplifying the notion the public has about GM foods having all sorts of problems. It's quite similar to why a large part of the population is opposed to nuclear energy on safety grounds while millions of people die each year from the consequences of air pollution. Count Iblis (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Lfstevens
I'm OK with 1, but prefer my edited version, 16 17. Same content, less verbiage. The scientific consensus claim is well-supported by quotes in the cites. Of course, there was once a consensus that the earth was flat. So there's that. I'm less interested in celebrating consensus than I am in communicating what's underneath the consensus. Our job isn't to reassure readers, but to present facts that they can interpret.

I'm astonished about how big a deal those two words have become. I have no confidence that this RfC will put the issue to bed. Lfstevens (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by MrOllie
I support proposal 1. I could also support those proposals which slightly modify the wording of proposal 1 in various ways, provided they retain a clear statement that there is scientific consensus on this topic. Many people oppose what the agricultural companies are doing on political, economic or ideological grounds. Our articles should include mention of that, but not at the expense of muddling the science. - MrOllie (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Johnfos
As a preface to my comments I would say that baldly stating that there is a "scientific consensus" is going too far. The term "a broad scientific consensus in the USA" would be better, and still in line with the references provided. The situation is more complex in the UK and some other countries, as the references show.

-- Johnfos (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 0: Oppose;
 * 1: Oppose;
 * 2: Strong Oppose; Far too short and simple.
 * 4: Strong support, as the best option. Captures some of the complexity of the situation between different countries.
 * 5-16: Oppose.

Comments by Chhe
Proposal 1: Strong Oppose. The first part of the statement is technically true, although strangely worded, sinc the scientific consensus is that GM crops are safe, but the second claim that the scientific consensus is that they should be tested on a case-by-case basis is definitely wrong. Your not going to find many scientists who think that each GM crop has to be tested since its no different than conventional breeding.

Proposal 2: Weak Oppose. I'm not frilled with the second sentence since obviously not all countries have this criteria. Otherwise if removed I wouldn't fully oppose.

Proposal 3: Strong Oppose. This is just vague, incorrect, and liable to lead one to misinterpretation. The scientific consensus is that GM crops are safe.

Proposal 4: Strong Oppose. All of it is very innacurate.

Proposal 5: Strong Oppose. Again interjecting this claim that scientists think that each GM crop needs to be scrutinized. Obsurd. Definately not the scientific consensus.

Proposal 6: Weak Oppose. First sentence is strange. Would be better if it was reworded as "Currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food. However, many countries currently require GM foods to be tested before their introduction.".

Proposal 7: Strong Oppose. Just a weird statement overall. Why would the method by which a gene is introduced neccessitate safety assesment.

Proposal 8: Strong Oppose. Why is the WHO singled out as if they are some group who has the best opinion on this matter.

Proposal 9: Strong Oppose. Same concerns as in 1.

Proposal 10: Strong Oppose. The statement "the health effects of GMOs is not fully resolved" is very inaccurate.

Proposal 11: Strong Oppose. "To account for the possibility of unintended effects, each modified variety needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction" This statement is problematic.

Proposal 12: Strong Oppose. Has many of the same problems as the previous statements.

Proposal 13: Strong Oppose. Has many of the same problems as the previous statements.

Proposal 14: Strong Support. There is nothing wrong with the current language. Its accurate and concise. It would be good to add that the scientific consensus is that GM crops are safe, but all of the proposals listed so far add in a bit of misinformation in their wordings. So I'd prefer no changes if no better alternative is given.

Proposal 15: Weak Support.

Proposal 16: Strong Oppose.

Proposal 17: Strong Oppose.

Proposal 18: Strong Support. This one is the clearest and most accurate. I added it, because I didn't like any of the ones already submitted. Chhe (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by P-Pal88
Proposal 1-3: Oppose. It suggests that all genetically modified crops have been tested and weakly suggests that other GMO foods are also non-different than organic counterparts. Most of all however it suggests that general scientific consensus par excellence has been achieved, while we all know that there are peer reviewed papers that question it, especially on alergenicity of GMO.

Proposal 4: Weak Oppose. Dancing around the issue.

Proposal 5-11: Oppose. Much beacuse of the same reasons as the previous ones.

Proposal 12: Strong Support. Stresses the ambiguity of the issue.

Proposal 13: Support. Simillar as 12.

Proposal 14-18: Oppose. Same reasons as the first three.

One more thing - keep in mind that this discussion has nothing to do with who is right about the GMO. Omitting the fact that there are scientists who disagree with general consensus is being partial same way as denying the fact that there is a general consensus of sorts. I think the best option would be to inform about both of those facts in as opinionless tone as possible. --P-Pal88 (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tarl.N
I'm concerned that this RFC approaches "truth by voting". That said: Tarl N. (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposal 1: Support. I don't see a glaring need to change the statement.
 * Proposal 2: Neutral. Nothing obnoxious other than TL;DR
 * Proposal 3: Oppose. Essentially POV.
 * Proposal 4: Oppose. POV.
 * Proposal 5: Oppose. POV.
 * Proposal 6: Oppose. POV.
 * Proposal 7: Oppose. Less information, less encyclopedic. The inverse of TL;DR.
 * Proposal 8: Oppose. Not clear what's proposal and what is comments.
 * Proposal 9: Neutral. Don't see it's necessary to make the change.
 * Proposal 10: Neutral. Don't see it's necessary to make the change.
 * Proposal 11: Neutral. Not a specific improvement, but at least not offensive.
 * Proposal 12: Oppose. POV.
 * Proposal 13: Oppose. POV.
 * Proposal 14: Support (i.e., support #1).
 * Proposal 15: Oppose.
 * Proposal 16: Oppose. Not an improvement. Saying "the scientific consensus" seems POV. The existing a is more accurate.
 * Proposal 17: Oppose.
 * Proposal 18: Oppose. Inaccurate, they are not identical.

Comments by Vanamonde93
I'd rather not comment on each proposal, because I think we're getting bogged down as to the precise wording that needs to be used. What this RfC should really do is to establish some general principles for a boilerplate version that can be used in many articles. For instance, do we use the phrase "scientific consensus?" Do we mention public opinion? Do we mention variable regulation? How, if at all, do we treat views outside the majority?

With this in mind, here are some thoughts. There do not appear to be serious scientific opinions stating that GM foods are unsafe; ergo proposal 3, and others implying false equivalence, are not appropriate. However, there are sources, namely Krimsky 2015 and Bawa & Anilkumar 2012, which are saying something subtle that some folks are glossing over. These sources, which need to be given due weight, are not saying GMOs are unsafe, but are saying that there isn't enough evidence to call them unequivocally safe. Therefore, making statements about scientific consensus is, as of now, premature. What we should say is something like "most scientists and these scientific bodies believe [GMOs are safe]. These others state that further study is required to determine their safety." followed by stuff about public opinion and regulation. Therefore, proposal 12 comes closest to representing the evidence we have here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by JohannSnow

 * Proposal 1: Strongly support.
 * Proposal 2: Oppose. Overly technical.
 * Proposal 3: Strongly oppose. Implies that the idea that GMO food is dangerous has more support than it actually does.
 * Proposal 4: Oppose. Seems overly political in nature.
 * Proposal 5: Neutral.
 * Proposal 6: Oppose.
 * Proposal 7: Oppose. It does not make adequetely clear that GMO food has not been shown to be dangerous.
 * Proposal 8: Oppose. Way too short.
 * Proposal 9: Oppose. Proposal 1 does not need a rewording.
 * Proposal 10: Oppose. It's the same as Proposal 1, except that it also implies a risk that isn't there.
 * Proposal 11: Neutral. Has no real advantage over Proposal 1.
 * Proposal 12: Neutral. Again, has no real advantage over Proposal 1.
 * Proposal 13: Oppose. Stating that we might learn more in the future is not only obvious, but it implies that it's more likely that we'll discover some negative side effect than it actually is.
 * Proposal 14: Neutral.
 * Proposal 15: Oppose.
 * Proposal 16: Support.
 * Proposal 17: Support.
 * Proposal 18: Strongly support. It might be less cautious than Proposal 1, but it makes it very clear that there is no evidence that GMO food is particularly more dangerous than unmodified food. My only issue is with the word "identical". A more proper phrasing would be "no more or less dangerous than", rather than "identical to".

JohannSnow (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Davey2010

 * I support Proposal 1 - It's reliably sourced, is neutrally-worded and IMHO is the best one out of the lot. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Jasper
It is absurd to have a general statement regarding whether all genetically modified organisms are safe to consume, or whether all genetically modified organisms should be treated with suspicion. This is because each genetic modification has a different purpose, and may have different effects. For example:


 * Reconstituting smallpox from records of its genome would create a genetically modified organism that would be unsafe to consume.
 * Genetically modified drone male mosquitoes do not bite humans (because they are male), do not pass their genes onto any progeny, and cause mosquito populations to decline over a few mosquito generations. I fail to see why anyone would need a study to show that it is safe to be around genetically modified drone male mosquitoes.
 * Some genetic modifications are done to make plants produce poisons that other plants have the genes to produce. If the amount of poison residue in the food is harmful, then the genetically modified organism is harmful (as compared to an unmodified plant that does not produce the poison).
 * Some genetic modifications are made to give plants resistance to herbicides. There are two possible issues with this:  do the added chemical pathways cause any risk to someone who eats the plants?  And would increased doses of the herbicides result in harmful residues?  Controlled studies might shed light on such questions.
 * Some genetic modifications add genes from species that some religions classify as unsafe to eat, and put them in species that these religions previously regarded as safe to eat. I do not see how any controlled study could determine whether the resulting genetically modified organism should be considered safe to eat by these religions.
 * Some genetic modifications are not expressed in the parts of the genetically modified organism that are made into food. For example, changing a dairy animal's coat color.
 * Some drugs are made by genetically modified organisms. Many of these drugs are safe and effective -- for people with particular conditions -- at certain doses, but have harmful effects at higher doses.

Jasper (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Monochrome Monitor
GMO are not inherently safe or unsafe. However, it's perfectly fair to say that it's a field that's still pretty uncharted, and that the ethics of the companies that engineer them, the patent laws surrounding them, and the whole idea of modifying things genetically is controversial.--Monochrome _ Monitor  06:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The part about subst equivalence is big- companies argue that gmo versions of foods are so similar to non-gmo versions that they needn't be tested separately, yet different enough that they need to be patented. It's important to say both that current scientific evidence points to gmo foods being safe but that there are some obstacles to getting evidence given the assumption of substequiv and lack of labeling, etc. On the other hand companies don't want their shit labelled because they're afraid stupid people will avoid their food even if its safe. --Monochrome _ Monitor  06:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, we're talking about safety for eating, controlling for all variables? Because that's very different than safety in general. Like, making plants more pesticide resistant (ie, roundup ready) may make them dangerous since more pesticides will be used, or that their proliferation will threaten wild species with extinction, or that having so many aggressively successful plants squished together destroys the topsoil.--Monochrome _ Monitor  06:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Tigraan
For the inevitable straw poll counting that will take place, I support #1 though I would prefer the "nonetheless" to be removed ("however" or nothing at all is fine).

I disagree with any attempt to paint this as a "jury still out" issue in the "scientific consensus" meaning of the term (e.g. 3, 4, 10, 12). The law of gravitation is as much disputed as GM food safety: excluding agenda-pushers like Séralini, the points of contention are extremely minor compared to what the general public thinks it is. "It should be safe, but ideally, further study would be better, and it would appease the angry mob outside" is different from "I do not know, really". We have come to a point where the press releases from governmental bodies are weaseling because the public is afraid, and the public is afraid because the PR are weaseling.

Important note: even if the scientific consensus is going in that way because Monsanto money influences the process, it is still scientific consensus for Wikipedia. We should not enter the business of guessing what would have been the result of studies if none of them had been sponsored by the industry even in an indirect way (if Monsanto recruits graduates from your labs, they are likely to hush any inconvenient results even if the study itself was govt-sponsored). We have no way to do that, and neither does anyone, and it would be textbook WP:OR. For the record, I do not believe money is sufficient to compromise the process - the oil industry is much larger than the GMO industry, and climate change is a much more complex issue to quantify, but the scientific consensus is still pretty clear.

I strongly oppose wording similar to "scientific consensus is that each GM food need to be tested on a case-to-case basis", as it attributes a normative statement to scientific consensus (attributing such a view to "scientists" is fine). "GM food is safe" or "drunk driving is unsafe" are descriptive statement even though the exact details of the statistical tests and studies hiding behind "safe" are important; "we should eat GM food" or "we should not drink and drive" are prescriptive.

While I do not oppose mentions of scientists vs. population views, I do not find any satisfying wording in the propositions that does not give the general impression of "dumb populace, why won't they accept the experts' words already" (e.g. #2). That is WP:SYNTH. I also oppose mention of "benefits for farmers, consumers" etc. such as what is in 5 because again, it may be true, but in the context it is a POV assertion.

Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way: I am new to the whole GM thing on WP, I was summoned by a notice on the watchlist page. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * support 19 as proposer, which is essentially 18 with "nonetheless" is taken out (see rationale above). Failing removal of "nonetheless", support 1. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by KSFT
I agree strongly with Jasper. If we claim that genetically-modified foods need to be tested for safety individually, we need to make it clear that that is no different from unmodified food. We should also point out that genetic modification is not a single process done to foods and that it couldn't be that every possible genetic modification makes every possible food unsafe to eat or that something fundamental about genetic modification does that. I don't think any of the proposals currently does either of these adequately. KSF T C 14:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Mizike
I support proposal one, but I agree with many above that the second sentence could use a tweak. I feel like an aspect change in the second sentence would be more accurate. Something like, "Nonetheless, members of the public have been much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe." Then we capture both the scientific consensus and also acknowledge the very real resistance to GMO foods to date. Mizike (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Hgilbert
I support proposal one with the qualifications added by FourViolas below, particularly using a term such as "the majority of scientists" rather than "consensus". I would not be averse to indicating that there are serious scientists who consider that until long-term studies are concluded, there is no way to be sure of the health effects of any particular modification. HGilbert (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by FourViolas
Declaration of potential COIs: Several years ago, I was paid to work on an American campaign to mandate the labeling of GE foods. More recently, I was paid to do lab work which included genetic manipulation of organisms in a non-agricultural context. I am not currently affiliated with either project. User:Jasper makes good points, showing that language in or near this boilerplate should clarify which organisms (currently or imminently commercially-marketed transgenic foods) are under consideration. FourViolas (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support with reservations This version cites the correct sources (WP:MEDRS; WP:MEDORG), and represents them reasonably accurately (WP:V). However, it seems questionable to assume naïve readers will understand “consensus” to mean “prevailing opinion” rather than “unanimous view”, when it is evidently necessary to explain this concept to WP editors (WP:PCR). Like others, I object to “Nonetheless, the public” as tendentious (WP:IMPARTIAL). Furthermore, this version glosses over the significant regional variation detailed in option 4; it relies too heavily on American (and thus pro-GRAS) sources (WP:SYSTEMICBIAS), and uses sources pertaining with WP:Undue specificity to the U.S. (such as the ABA and Scott 2016).
 * 2) Oppose Factual errors per David Tornheim, fails to give a complete picture of scientific opinion (WP:NPOV).
 * 3) Strike per WP:SNOW
 * 4) Support with strong reservations Gives a good sense of a significant difference in regional sub-consensus: substantial equivalence standard vs. strict case-by-case testing. Inappropriately uses a straw man in describing scientific disagreement, framing the debate as blind faith vs. skepticism when both sides have engaged in more and less bias-prone research. See also is awkward; it would better be used to support a more objective recasting of the “skeptical” sentence.
 * 5) Oppose Tendentious, selective evidence (WP:NPOV). “Nonetheless” even more out-of-place here.
 * 6) Oppose Fails to describe a complete picture of scientific opinion (WP:NPOV), leaves unexplained why GM food needs to be scientifically tested if it’s accepted a priori as safe.
 * 7) Oppose with sympathy I definitely see the appeal of following a single, sterling organization’s message instead of diving into the propaganda-filled morass of the actual debate, but we can’t assume all our readers will be satisfied with the WHO as final arbiter. That’s not what it’s for, and that’s not how WP:NPOV is supposed to work.
 * 8) Oppose Clear and reasonably accurate, but reductive and minimally informative.
 * 9) Neutral Less contentious than 1, but vague about regulations and concerns (WP:WEASEL). Same concern as in 1 about “consensus” (WP:PCR).
 * 10) Support with reservations Understates scientific opinion: not only a majority of studies but almost all scientific bodies state this, and while science is “not fully resolved”, there’s a clearly dominant camp. Same concern as in 1 about WP:SYSTEMICBIAS.
 * 11) Oppose Fails to give a complete picture of scientific opinion (WP:NPOV).
 * 12) Weak oppose Same concern as in 10 about “majority”, over-reliant on 2004 FAO source (WP:IRS).
 * 13) Weak oppose per 12.
 * 14) Oppose Evidently the issue is problematic and contentious; a solution is needed.
 * 15) Oppose with sympathy I don’t think WP can ever come to a high-quality consensus on this; there are too many culture wars, competing propaganda campaigns, and legitimate but highly sophisticated debates flying around.  But it would be embarrassing to dodge the issue.
 * 16) Weak oppose Same concern as in 1 about “consensus” (WP:PCR), date is unnecessary if information will be updated as new metareviews come out and is needlessly specific. Public response understated.
 * 17) Weak oppose Difference from 16 trivial, still understated.
 * 18) Weak oppose Unnecessary use of the passive voice glosses over useful information.
 * 19) Oppose per 18 and 19.

Comment by Banedon
I think this is a poorly formed RfC, since so many of the proposed wordings are so similar in essence I couldn't understand what the dispute is about until I started reading the comments (in fact I had to reread #16 and #17 several times before I actually spotted the two words that had changed between the two). I suggest those more familiar with what is causing issues here edit each proposal to explain why that proposal is different from the others.

Until then, support option #1, because I don't see any reason not to. The other options are generally either flawed (e.g. #2 uses unencyclopedic text, #3 is a cop-out), or I don't see enough difference to shift from the status quo (e.g. #12). Banedon (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Bfpage
I was asked by a bot to come and comment on this discussion. Frankly, get rid of the word "embrace" in proposal #4 and replace it with "accept" and it becomes more neutral. Who uses such a loaded term in scientific writing? The others are more or less acceptable. It is difficult for me to see why editors are so passionate about this topic. Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 01:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Darwinian Ape
Strong Support: Proposal 1. It reflects the sources well and is clearly written.

Oppose: Proposal 2. Its lead sentence looks a bit clunky and it conflates governmental approval with safety.

Strong Oppose: Proposal 3. All I can say positive is that it's brief...

Strong Oppose: Proposal 4. It tries to create a false balance, misrepresents scientific consensus.

Support: Proposal 5. Would be my second choice, it's more informative than the first but comes off as a bit argumentative.

Strongest support Proposal 18. This is the most informative yet. It represents the scientific consensus more clearly than any other proposal. Although, "current" is a bit redundant for the scientific consensus.

Strongest Oppose Proposal 21. Not only does it try to create a false balance, but also gives credence to the claim that GMO's are unsafe, which is the opposite of the scientific consensus.

Various degrees of oppose and neutral for the rest.

Also Strong Oppose to any proposal that contains "as of 2016." Scientific knowledge is always provisional and subject to revision, it makes no sense to say something like "as of [date]" This gives a false impression that studies so far on this topic area are less reliable than other scientific topics. Darwinian Ape talk 02:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Hexafluoride

 * Neutral: Proposal 4, given that the word "embraced" is changed to "accepted". I don't see that it confuses regulation for science. However, it does present a picture of equal divide which is not true.


 * Strong Support: Proposal 1, which is well referenced, and well written.


 * Oppose: Proposal 5. This one reads like it was written by some lobby for GMO!


 * Support: Proposal 6. The WHO is a trusted source. However, this is just one long quote.


 * Support: Proposal 7.

Q1: I think that the sources indicate there is a scientific consensus about GM food's safety.

I think that there are too many proposals to follow and properly analyze. Why not just agree on the basic concepts first, then form a proposal?


 * ¬Hexafluoride (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by tucoxn

 * Support: Proposal 4.
 * Support: Proposal 10.
 * Support: Proposal 20.
 * Support: Proposal 21.
 * (I reserve the possibility to rescind my support for any of the proposals at a later date, until the end of the RFC.)
 * Updated. -  t u coxn \talk 15:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Pgallert
I'll make a few general comments and hope that they are helpful: --Pgallert (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No paragraph (not just the 20 proposed as of now) can its entirety stand, without alteration, in the lead and in the text. While the lead should be short and summative, and I prefer it without any refs, the body can and should be more wordy.
 * Except in rare circumstances, chains of references[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] are ugly and unnecessary. For a reference work it is perfectly acceptable to pick one representative reference to support each important claim. Moreover, 15 refs in 4 lines makes it seem as if those 15 constitute the sum of all relevant literature on the topic, which is obviously not correct in the GMO case.
 * For a paragraph in the lead, I would support something along proposal 19, without references.
 * For a paragraph in the body, proposal 20 goes into the right direction. In its current form it reads terribly US-centered, though, and should therefore be preceded by a short explanation why the dichotomy 'America - Rest of planet' is warranted in this case.

Comment by Penwhale
These are my thoughts (number corresponding to proposal #):
 * Weak Support - Citation #4 really should have different text associated with it (instead of being bundled), and the public perception clause needs to be rewritten.
 * Strong Oppose - Currently it reads that the government rules are science.
 * No - Does not help the discussion when most of the text is gone, and also doesn't mention the public view.
 * No comment as Proposal 20 is being prepared to replace this one. Neutral - Wordy, but only has the either-or problem that I made for #20. Otherwise it is okay.
 * Oppose - The second sentence needs to be more verbose and including it with the other texts would make it unwieldy.
 * Oppose - If we're going to mention scientific consensus, it needs to go in the first sentence, not lumped in the sentence detailing the public view.
 * Strong Oppose - We should not completely eliminate the public view.
 * Strong Oppose - Needs more sources from different organizations/views. Note: Still have the same issues even after updated.
 * Oppose - Weaker than #1, and we're making things less precise.
 * Strong Oppose - As with #1, Cite #4 needs to be split out, and the fact that the text suggests there's no scientific consensus isn't supported by the citations.
 * Strong Oppose - It says nothing as to the scientific consensus.
 * Oppose - Last sentence needs to be more precise.
 * No - Second sentence runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL, and also has the #12 problem of weak last sentence.
 * Strong Oppose - Not mentioning the public view.
 * No - We need to say something here.
 * Weak Oppose - Needs to replace "... scientific consensus holds that as of 2016, ..." with " ... current scientific consensus holds that ...", and we really need to say regulation is on national level, not jurisdiction (which isn't precise).
 * Oppose - Like #16, and also the fact that "expressed concern" isn't the best phrase here.
 * Oppose - Citations for scientific consensus should go in the lead, and "in spite of" isn't necessary. Also has the "Jurisdiction" issue like #16.
 * Oppose - Have issues from #16 and #18.
 * (Waiting for Proposal to be finished) Weak Oppose - The version I'm seeing current as of this edit is a bit weak: (1) first line needs examples of pro-GMO international organizations, (2) second sentence needs an "either" somewhere in the sentence to make sense (either ... or ...), (3) The last two sentences can probably be combined (something like "Scientific reviews of GM food safety disagree on whether GMOs are Generally Recognized as Safe [Cites 11-13] or not [Cites 14-17].")
 * Oppose - Unfortunately, WHO/FAO are both UN-affiliated, so the second sentence is problematic.
 * Strong Oppose as not better than #1.

As of now, I can only support #1 but I feel it needs to be rewritten; #16 if revised could also work. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 05:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC) Edit: Revised at - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 16:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Chiswick Chap

 * 1 Proposal 1 is clearly an appropriately worded text, robustly supported by the evidence. Like many other editors (above), I would oppose essentially all the other Proposals as weak, unsupported, or weaselly, with the suspicion that these wordings embody a non-neutral point of view. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by DavidWBrooks
Proposal 1 is great, but brevity is the soul of wit, so I'd go with Proposal 8 as the shortest which accurately covers the three main points (no evidence of danger, case-by-case, public distrust). Proposal 3 misses too much. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Moriori
Proposal 1 for me, because it presents the "scientific views on the safety of genetically modified crops for human consumption" which is the purpose if this RfC. However, amendment is required, and that is to insert the word "some" into the  second sentence so that it reads "Nonetheless, some members of the public are much less likely....". It's drawing a long bow to say all members of the public are are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. Moriori (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Gudzwabofer
Proposal 1 is the best worded. It does need the addition of the caveat that medium and long term studies are still needed, as noted in some of the sources, as this is an integral part of any conclusion in health science. I agree that the sentence on public perception may not be needed, and if left needs a qualifier such as "some." I think the sentence on government regulation is more than enough to sum up the global mood and also represents the varying official opinions (and by implication, particularly in democracies, public opinions) on the safety on GMOs. I do have concerns about "currently available" as this doesn't state where they are available. Given the wide spectrum of regulation, as others have mentioned there may be some USA-centricism here, countries may have stricter or even more lax regulations whereby GMOs may be sold with limited testing. The first sentence does seem like a broad brush for this reason. Maybe a more accurate line would be "GMO foods currently approved for sale in the..." with a list of major markets who only allow sale of independently tested GMOs. Gudzwabofer (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Further investigation of the global regulatory status leads me to the conclusion that most of these proposed paragraphs are untenable. Many countries who have approved GMO foods for sale haven't done so with mandatory independent testing, so statements to the effect that there is blanket scientific consensus on the risk level of all available foods seems unlikely, especially as the referenced systematic reviews note the lack of studies for many GMOs, especially for medium and long term studies, and especially in human trials where ethics approval can't be obtained for placing people on long term GMO exclusive diets.


 * Proposal 4 is probably the closest to encompassing the complexity in a paragraph, although the reference to international organisations in the first sentence doesn't seem to be referenced, and should probably be removed from this otherwise USA descriptive sentence, the final sentence already does a good job of explaining the more neutral position taken by international organisations.Gudzwabofer (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by KaJunl
Proposal 1 is my preference. It summarizes the points succinctly. It states the majority opinion, but it also gives appropriate weight to the fact that a lot of people disagree with the scientific majority opinion, without coming across as biased towards the minority viewpoint- which is not easy to do. I prefer the word "nonetheless" to the word "however" in Proposal 17 and some others. "However" seems more biased towards the "GMOs are bad" viewpoint to me, while "nonetheless" comes across as more neutral, "even though the evidence says this, by the way here are some addition things to note" - "however" implies more of a contradiction to me, as in "even though the evidence says xyz, the following will tell you why that is likely wrong." -KaJunl (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by CCamp2013
Proposal 4 and proposal 20 (which is better, just isn't finished) are the ones I support. The others are quite honestly biased and do not put forth a neutral point of view. The research on whether GMO's are good or bad for living beings is far from being comprehensive. Frankly, I don't think it necessarily matters if GMO's are good or bad for anyone dealing with the entry on wikipedia. Both sides should be presented and sourced. This subject is too controversial to just state one side and say the scientific community have generally come to a consensus that their is no difference between non-GMO and GMO, in its current state. Maybe state the scientific communities research on the matter and also state public opinion? My guess would be the public opinion would be more negative than anything, but I'm not sure on that.

I read the proposals a couple days ago and just now got to comment on the subject. I re-read all the proposals and noticed some of the things i suggested were in fact in Propoal 1. I will change my support to that one instead. Chase (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Sambkk
My prefernece is proposal 12. its short (this can be a difficult topic for anyone with little background, such as myself), the proposal states that a majority of the scientific community ( and stating it in a way that means that it is a considerable/notable amount of that community) concludes theres no risk but recommend testing when new stuff is introduced. Then theres also a neutral mention of the opposing view, in a fashion that notes that while it might be a smaller portion its still fairly sigtnificant. All of this without much technical language that can be confusing. I think its an interesting note to mention the publics POV, and thats present in many proposals, but not sure how relevant that is, it does seem to make the issue more down to earth. Sambkk (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by DrPixie
My choice is for #1 with the addition of the line (and citations) "In some cases, modified crops have health and safety advantages over unmodified forms." from #11. It's clear, encyclopedic and to the point. #10 is similar but doesn't read as well, and #11 is rather over-cited! --Drpixie (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by A D Monroe III
Disclaimer: I'm new to GMO, and have no starting bias/opinion.

I cannot figure how we can sort out opinions on so many proposals at once. I think this can be broken down to four separate statements in the paragraph (in order):

A. Wording on scientific research

B. Wording on further study

C. Wording on public perception

D. Wording on varying regulations

For instance, on A, the issue seems to hinge mostly on whether "scientific consensus" goes here. For me, the problem is that readers won't know what this phrase means. There is scientific consensus that the Earth isn't flat, and there is also scientific consensus that there is life on other planets, yet these two theories have very different levels of acceptance. Yet some of the alternate proposals to "scientific consensus" may confuse even more. Saying "many scientific studies" may imply 10 out of 11, or 10 out of 100. Replacing "many" with "most" may imply just 51 of 100. More difficult for us is that the studies' summaries themselves tend to avoid saying unequivocally "they're safe", even if all their details seem to say they are (the nature of science avoids WP:TRUTH). So, perhaps stating something in the reverse sense is better, such as "found no basis for health concerns"; then we might precede that with "virtually all", which should imply to most readers that it's more than 95%, which is accurate.

I think will make this RfC manageable if we can first find consensus on A by itself, given we'll later do the "right thing" with B, C, and D. (I may add this alternate focus of the RfC as another numbered proposal if "many" agree ;) .)  --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Arnoutf
21 proposals is just too many to sensibly comment upon, so I will give some general comments.

First of all, it should be made clear that it is indeed a scientific consensus but not fact that claims safety. Opponents of GMO's (especially non experts) have challenged the use of rodent models for safety tests and have actually asked what would happen to human embryos of mothers raised exclusively on GM foods. Besides such tests being ethically impossible, it would also require several decades to run such a program, de facto stalling any GM. However, the choice to accept rodent models in testing is a simplification of the real situation and can be challenged.

Secondly, consumer benefits (or substantial equivalence) suggest that that production process, and the socio-ethical decisions made during production do not matter to consumers but that only the end product matters. This is the general position of US politics. EU politics on the other hand adopts the position that production process and technology are essential parts of a product, even if the final product is physically identical to a product produced in different ways (fair trade production is an example). This latter position makes the claim that there are consumer benefit much harder to defend, as the consumer should weigh potential benefits against costs perceived from the production process. At best the EU takes the position that the consumer should be able to freely weigh the costs and benefits and that therefore GM should be labelled as such. This difference in position is one of the major differences in US vs EU policies. Proposal 5 (in particular) appears to take the US position without putting it in this perspective and is seriously problematic.

I hope this helps to some extent (I do have some knowledge on especially consumer attitudes on this topic as I have published several scientific papers on consumer acceptance of GMO (including a cross-cultural meta-analysis in Trends in Food Science and Technology in 2013), so if there are some focused questions on that subtopic feel free to put it to me directly). Arnoutf (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by JerryRussell
In general, I like proposal 4 best, mainly because it mentions Krimsky and the UNEP in a non-dismissive way. My concern about many other proposals is with the words "scientific consensus". These words consign anyone who questions the orthodoxy, into the WP:FRINGE WP:PSCI dustbin with Flat Earthers and Alien Shape Shifters. Opponents of GMO deserve to be treated as rational human beings. In this case, claims of 'scientific consensus' in highly politicized statements of umbrella scientific organizations with strong financial COI's need to be taken with a grain of salt, in view of actual papers disputing this alleged consensus. The UNEP focuses some attention on the question of glyphosate residuals in GMO foods. This is the real agricultural reason for most GMO's, and glyphosate has recently been recognized as a carcinogen. So the UNEP's concern seems very real to me. JerryRussell (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposals 2,3,7,8,10,11,12,13 also avoid the words 'scientific consensus' but don't do a very good job of explaining why there is dissent. JerryRussell (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Prefer proposal 4 over proposal 21. I'm not sure any of the reviews go so far as to state that GMO's have been proven to be unsafe for humans to consume. JerryRussell (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I've declared a COI on the talk page, and decided I should do so here as well. I am landlord to three small organic farm operations in Eugene, OR. Wiki COI policy states that whether a COI "becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense." I trust that the closing editors will apply such common sense, both as to the effect this COI might have on my comments, and as to other COI's that exist for this topic at large. JerryRussell (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Zazpot
I am very uncomfortable with all the proposals above that claim scientific consensus on this matter, especially if they give the impression such consensus exists about (as-yet) undeveloped or untested GMOs.

I support Proposal 21, or failing that, Proposal 4.zazpot (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Pips
Same as Zazpot: I support Proposal 21, or failing that, Proposal 4. Pips 11:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Seppi333
 Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 12:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly support Proposal 1 - seems to be the most succinct and NPOV in summarizing scientific consensus, public opinion, and regulatory status, based upon the refs cited.
 * Support Proposal 19 (equivalent to 18 IMO, but prefer 19) - also seems NPOV in summarizing the above, but slightly less succinct
 * Oppose Proposals 14 and 15 - a statement should be included and the RFC default version needs improvement.
 * Oppose Proposals 4 - seems to be the most verbose and requires the reader to follow links to other pages (e.g., to Substantial equivalence, Precautionary principle, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety) to fully understand the statements in this proposal. I also don't believe that listing the government/medical organizations that are pro- vs anti-GMO is helpful, at least not in a summary paragraph.
 * Strongly oppose Proposal 3 - this statement is vague compared to the RFC default and other proposals. It also doesn't cover public opinion or regulatory status like the majority of the other proposals do.
 * Strongly oppose Proposal 21 - the statement Some scientific review articles on GM food safety conclude that GMOs are unsafe fails WP:V; neither of the cited reviews appear to conclude this and one doesn't even use the word "unsafe".
 * Neutral on all other proposals - I see no major issues in the rest, but the language is less preferable to props 1 and 19 IMO.

Comments by RobbieIanMorrison
I take the European view that the precautionary principle should apply. There is therefore no scientific consensus on being safe. Therefore:


 * proposal 4 — strongly support
 * proposal 21 — support

RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sminthopsis84
Jasper has given a nice summary of the wider issues above. It is absurd to have a general statement about the safety of GMOs. At best, the proposals hide such important issues as herbicide use in footnotes, and at worst they state something as fact that is merely a rough summary of most of the evidence that has so far been trumpeted (which amounts to telling a lie!). However, trying to muster support for something:
 * proposal 1 — oppose, misses the wider issues
 * proposal 2 — oppose, misses the wider issues
 * proposal 3 — oppose, the cruft is sure to creep back in
 * proposal 4 — weak support
 * proposal 5 — oppose, misses the wider issues
 * proposal 6 — oppose
 * proposal 7 — oppose, quite good except that it misses the wider issues
 * proposal 8 — oppose
 * proposal 9 — oppose
 * proposal 10 — oppose, quite good except that it misses the wider issues
 * proposal 11 — oppose
 * proposal 12 — oppose
 * proposal 13 — oppose
 * proposal 14 — oppose
 * proposal 15 — weak support, would be strong support, except that the cruft is sure to creep back in
 * proposal 16 — oppose
 * proposal 17 — oppose
 * proposal 18 — oppose
 * proposal 19 — oppose, paints the general public as an idiot
 * proposal 20 — oppose, strange wording that some scientific reviews of GM food safety conclude that GMOs hold an FDA designation ("are Generally Recognized as Safe").
 * proposal 21 — support

Comments by Leegrc
I do not like any of the proposals that segue from scientific consensus to popular opinion using "despite", "nonetheless", "however" or similar. My objection is similar in spirit to WP:CLAIM. These words all presuppose that popular opinion should be (but isn't) a causal consequence of scientific consensus. While scientists might like to think otherwise, the fact is that science is only one of many inputs used by people when they make decisions. Consider an exaggerated example that (inappropriately) hints that people are being contrary to what should be their better judgment: "Scientists cannot prove that love exists. Despite the evidence, some people believe in love." Oppose: 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19.

Support: 22

Comments by gnuish
The current wording suffices.

One aspect that seems to be missing from all the proposals is that much of the public opposition to GMOs seems to be derived from public dissatisfaction with the actions of one particular GMO company, Monsanto. These actions have included patenting seeds, locking farmers into restrictive contracts, restricting research with their seeds, making GMO crops that encourage the use of herbicides or pesticides, and preventing or suing farmers from replanting the seeds that they grow for subsequent crops. None of these actions is inherent in the concept of GMOs nor are they essential to the development, deployment nor use of GMOs. Partly due to the lack of other effective ways to oppose these controversial actions of Monsanto, all GMO crops have been "tarred" with public opposition merely because of the controversy around Monsanto's unrelated actions. This information would help to inform readers about why public opinion is so far from scientific opinion on this topic.

Comments by Snuge purveyor
The sources from proposal 1 have propogated throughout the later proposals without close inspection. I like Prop.1, but the sources are moderately US-centric, and some of them (AAAS in [5], AMA in [7]) are position papers regarding a specific policy under consideration in the US. Moreover, a number of the RS are over ten years old ([10],[11],[12],[14],[15],[20]). Some of these are very high-quality (WHO, FAO), but give the impression that scientific consensus existed in the past rather than the present. The talk page clarifies that this is not against MEDRS, but for a technology less than thirty years old, a fourteen-year-old paper might no longer reflect the state of the field. I also like ASOF (Props.16,17,19), which conveys the idea that the consensus may change if e.g. a new GMO food did show harm in trials.

Most of these proposals are too wordy. Especially if we're planning to transclude the successful boilerplate into all of the affected pages. (Is that the plan?) We're apparently likely to end up with Scientific opinion on the safety of genetically modified organisms per User:Aircorn in the Arbcom case, which page can elaborate on the subtleties omitted from the boilerplate and grow the cite herd.

The preponderance of RS assert that there is "scientific consensus" regarding the human health aspect of GMOs. There are a good number of RS that disagree, but using the terms "scientific agreement" or "majority of scientific papers" or whatever seems very SYNTH.

Judging from Talk, further sourcing issues seem to revolve around
 * Include Krimsky or don't?
 * Has Panchin overturned Domingo?

Krimsky is an outsider to the field, and editor of the journal in which he was published. Including Krimsky seems like ADVOCACY to me, especially Prop.21, where Krimsky and Domingo are the first two cites. Panchin is an outsider to the field, but not to statistics, upon which their critique of Domingo is based. This paper is very recent, but as it has been peer-reviewed we can't question its validity here. However, excluding Domingo from the cites seems wrong, so I suggest citing both in the context of Panchin overturning Domingo.

To address these opinions of mine, I propose Proposition 22. Weak support: 1, 16, 19, 20.

Comments by DrkBlueXG
Proposal 14 - How many sources qualifies this for Scientific Consensus? I say avoid the term Consensus if at all possible. Simplify it to just say "Studies have shown...". Every proposal listed is written with complete disregard to WP:WORDS. So I cannot recommend to replace the existing wording. - P14 - No Change DrkBlueXG (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Reidgreg
I strongly support Proposal 4, support 20 and 21, and oppose the others. Although the longest, I feel Prop 4 best represents the complex issue. I appreciate the links to substantial equivalence and the precautionary principle. I don't see justification for a current scientific consensus.

Proposal 4 (and 20 and 21) cite the IAASTD report with the telling line, data are provided by the companies owning the genetic materials, making independent verification difficult or impossible. I feel that's vital to include. Even if there were a consensus, any scientist provided only biased data will come to a biased conclusion. Adding the COI and Monsanto's revolving door to government and academia, we should be cautious. Reidgreg (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by SMcCandlish
RfC question 1: Tentatively yes; follow the sources and their due reliability. I'm aware of previous support for using "scientific agreement" not "scientific consensus". But we have an article at scientific consensus – users will have a way to see what this term of art means – and not one for "scientific agreement", a fake term we made up.

RfC question 2: On specific proposals. I oppose except where noted otherwise in boldface. For purposes of this, I consider "main article" (singular) to be Genetically modified food, and "primary articles" (plural) to be Genetically modified food, Genetically modified food controversies, and (for particular details) Genetically modified crops and Genetically modified organism. Some version of #1 should be used in all of them, with extended version based on #2 for main and maybe primary articles. Remember that this is summary material, not an entire article. We must avoid bogging the reader down in hair-splitting detail, siding with the WP:FRINGE view, misrepresenting scientific consensus as WP:TRUTH, using emotional or baggage-laden language, and being so vague or clipped that the result is confusing, open to interpretation, or just raises questions in the reader's mind instead of answering them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC) Revised  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Support as the basic text, perhaps with minor improvements as noted in bold below. For the primary articles, #1 isn't really sufficient, and should be expanded include the background points from #2. However, "currently available" should be dropped, per MOS:CURRENTLY. Open to moderation of the first statement in this and similar variants.
 * 2. Support as additional material for an expanded version for the primary articles, merged with #1. Both #1 and #2 make well-sourced, informative, and key points, but the material in #2 is largely background explanation of the points in #1, and does not stand well at all on its own.
 * 3. This one is just uninformative.
 * 4. Too detailed for most cases, but this material should mostly (after cleanup) be integrated with #2 for the main article, and possibly one or another of the other ones. But it has PoV problems at "embraced", "assert". "Human consumption" makes reader ask "What about hair and skin products? Pet food?". Even if fixed, #4 does not stand well on its own. Is missing the public distrust matter. And "(See also[18].)" is faulty style.
 * 5. WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT, WP:WEASEL, MOS:CURRENTLY. If cleaned up, is pro and con section material.
 * 6. WP:NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:TRUTH, asserting facts in WP's own voice that are subject to considerable public debate. MOS:CURRENTLY.
 * 7. WP:UNDUE. Integrate with #2 for extended version.
 * 8 Integrate cites with #2 "The general populace is": invalid "hive mind" generalization. WP:NOR: can't talk about "most" in WP-voice.
 * 9. Twitter-style telegraphic writing. MOS:CURRENTLY problem. Needs "scientific consensus".
 * 10. WP:NOR: "majority" in WP-voice. Needs "scientific consensus". "The science on health effects of GMOs is not fully resolved within the scientific community" does not really parse. MOS:CURRENTLY.
 * 11. WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:NOR (#1 attributes to scientific consensus, not stating as fact in WP-voice). MOS:CURRENTLY. Needs "scientific consensus". Include "to account for the possibility of unintended effects" (with source) rationale in whatever is final version.
 * 12. WP:NOR: "majority" again. Unclear: "settle" which "question"? Needs "scientific consensus".
 * 13. One-word change does not fix problems.
 * 14. Invalid, or there'd be no RfC.
 * 15. Invalid, since it doesn't parse as English. If it "just delete it all", obviously no.
 * 16. Twitter style; acronyms everywhere; silliness: "available food" versus secret food?. "As of" not necessary; these are frequently edited articles. WP:NPOV: "Outright". "The general public has less confidence" = hive-mind generalization.
 * 17. Ditto, and worse.
 * 18. Cites missing; cannot evaluate. Also muddled. MOS:CURRENTLY + silly: "present-day" GMOs versus Paleolithic ones? No such thing as "act of modifying crop genomes"; involves multiple acts. WP:NPOV: "Act", "outright". Reundant: "Nonetheless, in spite of". Senseless: "Prevalent among some members of the public" is like "a pandemic among a few people". Needs "scientific consensus". Change "human consumption".
 * 19. Ditto, plus an as-of date down to the month, which is overkill.
 * 20. Merge organizational stuff to #2, for extended version. Needs "scientific consensus", and general-public concerns; change "human consumption". MOS:CAPS: it's "generally recognized as safe".  If  RS support "generally recognized as safe" add to #2 for extended version. WP:NOR: urging study/caution != findings that GMOs aren't generally safe.
 * 21. WP:POV, WP:SOAPBOX against scientific consensus. Cover in pro/con not lead, per WP:FRINGE. "Some scientific review articles" unnecessary, since whole article based on them per WP:MEDRS (see also WP:NODISCLAIMERS). Needs "scientific consensus" and general-public concerns.
 * 22. Twitter-style to extreme; more like journal article title than encyclopedic content. WP:NPOV: "Outright". Needs "scientific consensus"; change "human consumption". "The general public has less confidence" = hive-mind generalization.
 * 23. No such proposal as of this writing, and more should not be added.

Comment by Maproom
There are good reasons to be concerned about the use of the techniques involved in developing GMOs; and about the growing of GMO crops. The effect of consuming the crops is not among them. When informed scientists express their concerns about GMOs, the message absorbed by ordinary people is "GMOs are bad, that must be because they are toxic". Some, not all, anti-GMO campaigners, accept and even encourage this misunderstanding. It would be good if the disclaimer under discussion could draw a distinction between "eating GM crops is risky" and "GM crops are risky". Maproom (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by DHeyward

 * Comment we should move away from "scientific consensus" and just state plainly as fact. "Climate Change" has essentially poisoned the term.  We don't state "There is scientific consensus that the earth is round."  Instead of adding authority, SC is perceived by the public as a crutch for incomplete science with large margins for error.  That is not the intent so we should avoid it.  My closest would be a modification of #1.

Currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food. Each GM food is scientifically tested before introduction. Ordinary consumers are less likely to agree with regulatory and scientific testing bodies that GM foods are safe. Consequently, the legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.

There's more that could be added about the benefits of GMO foods as well as how much opposition is rooted in protectionism, etc, etc, but it starts to get into the weeds with all the secondary effects.

In short, plainly state facts as facts as we know them. Don't justify testing with "precautionary principle", just state that testing is done (it's presumed that all testing is for the precautionary principle and we should mention PP only if a protocol abandons it - and there  is no evidence this is the case). --DHeyward (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note with so many proposals, there should probably be narrowing/consolidating after discussion followed by more comments/discussion. No more than 3 final choices to discuss/tweak.  --DHeyward (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of changes to Proposal 8
Proposal 8 has been amended in accord with the suggestions made, and I ask that fresh looks be made. Its aim is to be concise, accurate, and easily understood. Remember this is "boilerplate" and where specific other material is reasonable to include in specific articles, it does not preclude such additional material. Collect (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by tronvillain
While I'm a little late to the table, I strongly support Proposal 1, given that the preponderance of reliable sources appear to support the existence of a scientific consensus that existing genetically engineered crops intended for human consumption are no more dangerous than conventional crops. While there are dissenting opinions, most of the commonly cited ones appear to fall under WP:FRINGE (Seralini, Carman, Senneff, etc.) Of course, I'm assuming that the associated references are for the purposes of this RfC, rather than something that would necessarily be included with the final statement on each of the affected pages.

While some have expressed concerns about the "but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction" caveat, I have yet to see any evidence of regulatory agencies or scientists suggesting that GMO foods should be approved for consumption without testing. To start with, there is the necessity of testing to ensure new proteins in GMOs are not allergenic, to say nothing of other unintended effects. Without testing, you could end up with the GMO equivalent of the conventionally bred Lenape potato, which produced unusually high levels of solanine. --tronvillain (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Geogene
Support proposal 1 as being most consistent with sources. I don't have time to comment on all 23 proposals, but I strongly oppose number 23: Some scientific review articles on GM food safety conclude that GMOs are unsafe that implies that there are is a considerable number of them. while others conclude that they are Generally Recognized as Safe implies false equivalence. Also, GRAS is technical jargon used by the FDA and which also appears to be applied incorrectly here. <i>Numerous countries, such as those in the E.U., follow the precautionary principle and require testing and/or labeling of GM</I> this is a red herring, made less obvious because it's crouched in jargon: the Precautionary Principle is just an alternative definition of what "safe" means. I don't have room to get into that here, obviously, but it's just another path into the wilderness. We might as well say, "different countries disagree with what "safe" means", which would be equivalent in meaning but I think Wikipedians would have a better chance of seeing the problem there. Different countries define safe differently, "safe" can be defined in such way that is so stringent it cannot be demonstrated, and, perhaps, some countries that desire to keep foreign agricultural products out of their domestic markets while simultaneously selling their own abroad may be especially motivated to do so.

"Scientific consensus" is the right way to put it. It means that most scientists (as given in sources) believe that GMO food is reasonably safe (as in, not more unsafe than conventional food, some of which may be dangerous). There can be some dissent on the safety of GMO food, if not now, then it can be reasonably anticipated in the future. There can be some dwindling dissent on climate change, or it's within the realm of possibility that there might be at some point in the future, because science is tentative. This is not something like the shape of the Earth or its age of the Earth. Those are so well established that it's unfathomable that someone will seriously claim that it is flat in the future or that science will ever re-consider that it might be 6,000 years old. That debate is over, and it's unthinkable that it will come back. Science isn't that tentative. Geogene (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dicklyon
Proposal 1 is not bad, but I would take care especially with what SMcCandlish calls "misrepresenting scientific consensus as WP:TRUTH". Most of the other proposals have obvious problems.

I agree that the modified proposal 8 is not bad.

I'm no expert in this topic, but it is my understanding that a major issue is not the GMO plants themselves, but rather the chemicals that are used on them. There may also be a consensus that it is OK for humans to consume a lot of RoundUp, but that's also something that I see challenged a lot. Does the scientific consensus on GMO crops extend to that? Not sure... Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Cathry
Strongly oppose to Proposals 1, 5, 6, 9,16, 17, 18, 19, 22 as they speak about scientific consensus. Other Proposals show that there is no scientific consensus. Also, there is direct source about "No scientific consensus on GMO safety" (including food safety) in Environmental Sciences Europe. Proposals, which mention "current available" foods are unappropriate new available food can appear every day.

Weak support to Proposals 4, 20 as they show different significant opinions. But it is not clear, what "other international scientific organizations" in the first sentence. Cathry (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

About Domingo and consensus
As other editor give link to Domingo 2016 review with description "agrees with consensus". I must say he don't. As he don't support "substantial equivalence" concept and demands long-term studies "studies on the long-term health effects of GM plants, including tests of mutagenicity, teratogenicity and carcinogenicity seem to be still clearly necessary." What he did it is only description of the available research which are not about all available crops and are not long-term mostly Cathry (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sandstein
I'm a layperson and have no strong views on the issue; I'm mainly concerned with conciseness and neutrality. From what I can gather proposal 1 reflects scientific and other reliable sources' consensus. Proposal 22 attempts to condense it into a more layperson-friendly summary. I therefore support proposals 1 or 22 or some combination thereof. I oppose the more verbose proposals and those attempting to cast doubt on what seems to be scientific consensus by using qualifying language such as "most studies", etc. I'm also not sure that the more skeptical position by members of the public needs to be mentioned in a lead-style summary at all, but I can see why it might be.  Sandstein  07:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

S Marshall
Support proposal #1.— S Marshall T/C 09:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Alexbrn
Overall, I would support Proposal 1 as being what we want, as it has good sources well-summarized and doesn't suffer from the faults of some of the other proposals' text such as false equivalence (4), blatant anti-GM POV (21), subtle anti-GM POV (10) or pointed lack of content (3). Alexbrn (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dschslava

 * 1. Support—neutrally worded, precise, concise. What I'm concerned about, however, is that there are 20 in-line citations for three sentences of the article—it seems a little like overkill.
 * 2. Oppose—Gives too much weight to view of regulatory bodies as opposed to scientific consensus.
 * 3. Oppose—Absolutely inadequate.
 * 4. Oppose—Too long, gives disproportionate coverage to regulatory aspects and sources of questionable repute; WP:UNDUE.
 * 5. Oppose—Too broad.
 * 6. Oppose—It is certainly untrue that GMOs are tested on a case-by-case basis.
 * 7. Oppose—One source for this contentious summary? Bloody hell, who thought of this thing?
 * 8. Oppose—Too few sources, too imprecise for a summary.
 * 9. Oppose—Written as if all non-scientists oppose GMOs, third sentence is laughable at best.
 * 10. Oppose—“Not fully resolved”, in the context of such sourcing, is simply inaccurate.
 * 11. Oppose—“needs to be tested—Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX.
 * 12. Oppose—“further study” refers to a 2004 report—outdated.
 * 13. Oppose—see above.
 * 14. Oppose
 * 15. Absolutely not.
 * 16. Weak Support—Works, but prefer proposal 1.
 * 17. Weak Support—See above.
 * 18. Weak Support—not precise enough, however.
 * 19. Support—quite good.
 * 20. Oppose—Too much weight on scientific divisions—the scientific community is generally in favour of GMOs.
 * 21. Oppose—see above.
 * 22. Oppose—a bit too vague.

Comments by Sunrise
To start off, I’m an involved editor even though I’m commenting right before the closure. For some reason I thought I had another week, but I’m often relatively inactive here and lost track of time.

For the question on whether there is a scientific consensus, my answer is yes based on the weight of sources. To avoid reiterating previous arguments, I’ll just say that while dissenting sources exist (which is expected, since consensus is not unanimous), they are heavily outweighed. It may be useful to consult the list of sources I compiled here (originally mentioned here) as a summary of the sources mentioned in the June 2015 RfC. Note that for statements about food safety, only WP:MEDRS sources are relevant for determining weight – for example, this excludes statements by non-scientific organizations (in general, any group that isn’t explicitly a medical or scientific society) as well as all primary research literature.

As background, the answer to the consensus question should also be clear from the results of the two previous RfCs. While the second formally found no consensus, it’s important to note that (besides the fact that this meant the previous result stood) the rationale primarily focused on procedural issues. Additionally, a clarifying comment by the closing admin shows that their evaluation of weight was similar to the previous conclusion (direct quote: “Indeed, my closing statement implied that a fairly small shift in the balance should be enough for consensus, with due weight still strongly favoring the view that these foods are safe.” )

For the second question: while I naturally have individual preferences, in general I will support any version which clearly states the scientific consensus, and does not give false balance to alternative views. In this context, for false balance I mean that even though there may be a few scientists supporting any one view, the reason for the prominence of alternative views must be presented as a popular (not scientific) phenomenon. Likewise, I will generally oppose proposals where the safety statement is attributed, because they are too easy to interpret as carrying too much ambiguity.

Whether the precise word “consensus” appears isn’t that important to me, even though the previous RfCs tended to focus on this issue. The key point is that when a source makes a factual statement about GM foods without using the word “consensus,” the source can still support a direct statement of fact – which is stronger than “consensus,” because consensus specifically allows for the existence of dissent.

All that said, my first preference is proposal 1. For the other proposals, many of the points I would have made were already said effectively by other editors; I’ll just add some things that weren’t mentioned or which I think should be re-emphasized. To add to my comments above, reasons for opposing include:
 * implying the existence of significant scientific ambiguity, as in proposals 3, 4, 10, 12, 20, and 21. Several proposals divide scientific organizations into two groups and juxtapose them as two sides of a debate, but reading the sources carefully shows that some of them are out of date (e.g. the science was much less clear before 2005), the groups may not actually disagree (e.g. the WHO has the same general position as the other major organizations), etc.
 * overemphasizing regulation, as in proposals 2 and 4. The science is much more likely to be relevant to our readers, and is also more central to the subject except on dedicated articles about regulation.
 * non-neutral language, e.g. “assert” as in proposals 4 and 20 (see WP:W2W).
 * emphasizing one or two sources, as in proposals 7 and 8.
 * implying that currently approved foods may be found to be unsafe in future, as in proposal 13, because the weight of sources contradicts this.
 * using the “as of 2016” format, as in proposals 16, 17, 19, and 22. It’s only supported by sources published in 2016, and will rapidly become non-neutral, because the high-quality sources we have will not go out of date so quickly. As a result, it will probably make us relitigate this dispute every year or two even if no new information is available. (In contrast, it will be relatively easy to tell if the scientific consensus actually does change.)
 * making statements about GM foods as a whole instead of the currently available foods, as in proposals 12, 13, 20, and 21. On a related note, it’s a common misreading of statements about safety to interpret them as applying to all possible GM foods instead of only those on the relatively short list of foods that are already approved (e.g. see List of genetically modified crops).

I’m glad that it seems we’ll be able to resolve this soon. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 06:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by ArtifexMayhem
1. Based upon the policies, guidelines, and concepts related to scientific consensus, listed below, do the preponderance of reliable sources (see citations in the listed proposals) indicate that there is a scientific consensus about the safety of genetically modified food with respect to human health?
 * Yes. The vast majority of reliable sources presented here clearly show the that a scientific consensus does exist, and might best be stated as, "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." — American Association for the Advancement of Science (2012)

2. Should the existing language be changed, and which content proposal(s), if any, best represent the answer to question 1 for inclusion in the articles listed above?
 * Yes. The existing language should be changed to better represent the sources and avoid the mixing of issues (e.g., "but should be tested on a case-by-case basis" seems vague and out of place). Option #1 above seems a reasonable start, assuming the references are cleaned up and brought inline with our policies and guidelines. For example, the odd "But see also:" section should be removed (sources out of the mainstream might have a place in the article, but they should not be used to rebut mainstream sources in the reference section of the lead).


 * — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Jusdafax
As I stated in the formation of this unusually-constructed Rfc, there is no need for this process, and the very idea of locking-in article content that can't be changed sets a terrible precedent for business/scientific Wikipedia topics. That said, I'll support #4 and #20 per David Tornheim, who closely observed and attempted to correct this misguided Rfc from its inception. I'll also strongly oppose #1 as biased and manipulative. Using Wikipedia to comment on GMO "safety" is a breathtaking misuse of the project which smacks of Public Relations, and is not what I call encyclopedic. I also thank Petrarchan47 for bringing up numerous important points despite resistance. I urge closers to consider the big picture here, and not take what can easily be interpreted as a pro-GMO position. I believe to do so will make Wikipedia a worldwide laughingstock. Jus da  fax   08:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tsavage
Oppose all proposals as replacements, across multiple articles, for the existing sentence described in the RfC preamble - editorial scope of the 20+ proposals varies greatly, they are not alternatives. GM food safety should be developed in the most relevant article, then summarized (WP:LEAD)); currently, the material in proposals is not coherently covered in any of the articles.

Proposal 1 and the other scientific consensus statements are particularly problematic. Scientific consensus is NOT something that editors can determine for themselves by assembling sources and deciding that they collectively represent the generally held view (WP:OR>WP:SYNTH). For Wikipedia to declare a consensus, we need high quality, neutral sources that clearly says so (WP:RS/AC). Further, the plain English takeaway from Prop 1 Sentence 1 (the only sentence directly applicable to the RfC question) is: "Science says that GM food is as safe as non-GM food, but new products will still be tested." This amounts to Wikipedia providing a scientific endorsement of GM food, that fails to represent the underlying facts. Prop 1 has numerous problems, including:

Scientific consensus not verifiable as cited: Prop 1 Sentence 1 offers 15 sources. The three strong sources by type, two review studies, Nicolia and NAS, and a Library of Congress report, do not support consensus wording: "scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops" - Nicolia ; "the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts" - NAS ; and "Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements ... indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products" - LoC. No broad statement of consensus, rather, findings to date, substantial equivalence, and attribution to specific organizations.

Misleading scope: "Currently available" presents a narrow subset of all GM food that excludes, notably, 1) meat from animals raised on GM feed (widespread); 2) GMO meat (notably, the GM salmon approved in 2015 in US and Canada); 3) unapproved GM food from black market seed in major producing countries (well-documented). Further, most GM food available now is so classified because it contains highly processed GM crop ingredients that retain little or no genetic material, not GM whole foods like fruits and vegetables. - to imply that "currently available" includes a normal range of foods, is misleading and inaccurate.

Misleading on case-by-case testing: "... but that each GM food needs to be tested" suggests that safety is settled, but precautionary testing of new foods is still recommended. In fact, safety is addressed specifically by testing the unique modification in each GMO - case by case testing has been and remains the only approval approach, and the aggregate of test results for different GMOs does not add up to increased assurance, as each GMO is different. (WP:NEUTRAL>WP:IMPARTIAL)

Misrepresents that safety science is settled: GMO research is vigorously ongoing, with new and more exotic GMOs, new assessment tools, new parties involved in GMO development,... To state that there is broadly settled science around GMO safety is inaccurate and misleading.

Substantial equivalence is not given due weight: The universal scientific basis for GM crop commercialization is substantial equivalence (comparing GMOs with conventional counterparts) as determined by regulatory agencies - requirements vary by country (e.g. voluntary (US) or mandatory (EU) testing), while the actual scientific assessment is essentially the same everywhere. "No riskier than/as safe as" is drawn from equivalence testing. For example, from the FDA: "In conclusion, all of the data and information we reviewed ... really drive us to the conclusion that AquAdvantage salmon is Atlantic salmon, and food from AquAdvantage salmon is as safe as food from other Atlantic salmon" - "as safe as" is not the result of scientific consensus, it is based on regulatory assessment of test data for the individual GMO. This is protocol testing, conducted to satisfy regulatory requirements, and in that respect, distinct from other ongoing GMO research - to conflate the two without explanation is misleading, and fails to establish the central importance of substantial equivalence (WP:NEUTRAL>WP:BALASPS).

A factually accurate and NEUTRAL GM food safety summary should make two things clear: 1) to date, multiple lines of scientific inquiry have found no significant hazard from GMOs used for food and feed (e.g. NAS (2016), Nicolia (2013), others); 2) approval of GM food for human consumption is universally based on substantial equivalence, which compares each GM food with a similar conventional food that has been safely eaten over time, to establish that the GM food carries no novel risk.(Nicolia, others). This avoids questionable assertions like "currently available" and "scientific consensus," accommodates all cited sources without synthesis, and sticks to basic, plainly stated facts. --Tsavage (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Yobol
Generally support proposal #1. The sources point to the existence of a consensus on this point, with the highest quality sources developing this. I am concerned about the use of poor quality sources such as Krimsky in the proposal, but it is not enough to keep me from supporting it. I do not support any of the various proposals which try to date the consensus ("as of 2016..."), and strongly oppose those proposals such as #4 and #20 that place emphasis on false equivalence on this topic. Yobol (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)