Talk:Genetically modified food

Removed references and links

I removed the following as there are way too many. I have pasted them here in case some need to be recued. David D. (Talk) 22:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Huang, J. et al. 2002. Plant Biotechnology in China. Science 295:674-677.
• Niu, 2003. Caution in China over GM Crops. Science 299: 1013
• Lei, W. 2004. China Could Be First Nation to Approve Sale of GM Rice. Science 306:1458-1459.
• Robert Ali Brac De La PerriFre and Franck Seuret (2001), Brave New Seeds: The Threat of GM Crops to Farmers, Zed Books
• Stephen Nottingham (2003), Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food Is Entering Our Diet, Zed Books
• http://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml
• Anderson, K. and Lee Ann Jackson. 2005. Some Implications of GM Food Technology Policies for Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of African Economies 14(3):385-410; doi:10.1093/jae/eji013
• Heong, KL, YH Chen, DE Johnson, GC Jahn, M Hossain, RS Hamilton. 2005. Debate Over a GM Rice Trial in China. Letters. Science, Vol 310, Issue 5746, 231-233, 14 October 2005.
• Huang, J., Ruifa Hu, Scott Rozelle, Carl Pray. 2005. Insect-Resistant GM Rice in Farmers' Fields: Assessing Productivity and Health Effects in China. Science (29 April 2005) Vol. 308. no. 5722, pp. 688 – 690. DOI: 10.1126/science.1108972
• Center for Food Safety. "Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers," 2005.[1]
• ETC Group. "Canadian Supreme Court Tramples Farmers‚ Rights," May 21, 2004.[2]
• ETC Group. "Oligopoly Inc., 2005," December 16, 2005.[3]
• Freese, W. & Schubert, D. "Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods." Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, Vol. 21, November 2004.
• Fedoroff. N., Analysis of Pusztai Study on GM Potatoes and their effect on Rats
• Pusztai, A. "Pusztai Answers His Critics,"2005.[4]
• Pusztai, A. "National Regulations Should Reflect Risks of GE Crops," 2006.[5]
• Ribeiro, S. "Las Ratas de Monsanto." La Jornada (México), June 11, 2005.
• Shiva, V. Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply, South End Press, 2000.
• Smith, J. Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating. Yes! Books/Chelsea Green Publishing.[6]
• Smith, J. "Genetically Modified Peas Caused Dangerous Immune Response in Mice," 2005.[7]
• Smith, J. "Un-Spinning the Spin Masters on Genetically Engineered Food," 2006.[8]
• TexPIRG Education Fund. "Raising Risk: Field Testing of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States," 2005.
• Eppendorf Biochip Systems New technology for GMO detection: DualChip GMO microarrays
• US FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
• Gateway to Government Food Safety Information
• Council for Responsible Genetics FAQ on GM food
• CBC Digital Archives – Genetically Modified Food: A Growing Debate
• Food of the Future?
• Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? April 2000
• International Conference "GM Crops and Foods" (20/21 November 2006 in Frankfurt, Germany)
• 'GM Foods - Safe?' Scientific discussion by the Vega Science Trust and the BBC/OU
• Food Security and Ag-Biotech News
• Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects 2004
• Global knowledge Center for Crop Biotechnology
• Information Systems for Biotechnology
• Mendel in the Kitchen: Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Food Nina V. Fedoroff and Nancy Marie Brown, NAS 2004
• CheckBiotech - Sponsored by the University of Basel, Switzerland. Uni Basel's "Biozentrum" is a center for life sciences study, and CheckBiotech provides authoritative current commentaries and news.

Article is infested with pseudoscience

The article is unreadable and is essentially a marketing piece for organic farming. It contains numerous quotes from material published by unscientific groups with obvious agendas to promote organic produce, such as Soil Association, Center for Food Safety and Organic Center. It contains entire sections devoted to health risks, even though no real evidence of any such risks has been ever produced and they remain pure conjecture. The section on the EU "ban" is dishonest: the EU did not have a blanket ban but instead delayed the licensing process without any reason; and it focuses on some irrelevant Wikileaks cable in order to suggest that US has an ulterior motive, or that its government is taking bribes. The section about allergens does not mention that GM food is actually tested for allergens, while non-GM food is not. --Tweenk (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The section "Alfalfa" seems to me to be particularly one-sided - i.e. not a Neutral Point Of View. This section reads like propaganda from the anti-GM activists not an entry in an encyclopaedia. 50% of this section contains stuff/quotes from the "organic farming/sales community", " organic farming groups, organic food outlets, and activists", two anti-GM politicians and the " Center for Food Safety." What about some information from the other side of the argument? Where are the detailed reasons why the USDA allowed GM alafalfa to be grown? Where are the quotes from the farmers who grow the 96% of alfalfa that is not organic and who presumably benefit from advantages of GM alfalfa? Where are the quotes from the pro-GM politicians, from Monsanto and from the GM seed distributors? SylviaStanley (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The section "Legal issues with Roundup Ready Alfalfa in the US" in the article "Alfalfa" seems to much a much more objective description. I propose we replace what is here with the section from "Alfalfa." SylviaStanley (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a source for "quotes from the farmers who grow the 96% of alfalfa that is not organic and who presumably benefit from advantages of GM alfalfa...quotes from the pro-GM politicians, from Monsanto and from the GM seed distributors" I am sure that you could enter that information. I don't see a problem with the alfalfa section that would warrant its removal. What you may see as propaganda others may see as merely organic farmers defending their position. Gandydancer (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to keep adding quote upon quote. The majority of this section should be moved to the controversies article and just a short summary explaining the facts (no quotes or opinions from either group) left here. AIRcorn (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If we add more and more quotes the section on the Alfalfa legal issues, it will become the biggest section in the article - significantly longer than the similar section in the Alfalfa article. I think your proposal to move the majority of this section to the controversies article is the most logical one (It has always seemed surprising to me that Alfalfa is included in this article anyway. I would guess that 99.9% of Alfalfa is used as feed for cows, cattle and the like).SylviaStanley (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved the bulk to Genetically modified food controversies#Alfalfa. Trimmed the block quotes and reduced the section here to a paragraph. AIRcorn (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice job Aircorn. However I think your description here is a little too short. It reads to me like the USDA plucked deregulation out of the air. I think the article should include that, the Supreme Court overturned the District Court total ban on GM alfalfa planting because there was no evidence of irreparable injury. They ruled that the USDA can always allow partial deregulation before an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is published (Iowa State University - Recent Legal Action Involves Genetically Modified Crop). However, the USDA chose not to allow partial deregulation as the EIS was almost complete. Their 2,300 page EIS was published in December 2010. It concluded that GM alfalfa was safe and the USDA then deregulated GFM alfalfa in January 2011 (USDA - Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SylviaStanley (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with this case so just used what was already here. A better explanation of why the USDA approved planting after the Supreme court ruling would be good. I don't like the way we say that their ruling was somewhat unclear without saying what the ruling was either. If you can improve it I say go ahead, just keep it brief in this article and go into more detail in the controversies one. AIRcorn (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

OK Will do. SylviaStanley (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Biotechnology-derived foods was redirected here (after AfD)

There is some sourced material there [9], which may be relevant, although it uses WP:Parenthetical referencing. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Breeders' and Geneticists' perspective

The plant breeders' and geneticists' perspective is one of the things missing all the time from news reports and publications like this. For example, on the allergy issue, it is probably impossible for a disease resistance gene to cause allergies when it is transferred to another crop. When your transfer storage proteins (like those in the mentioned Brazil nut) to another seed or nut, yes, you can anticipate the potential for allergic reactions to be transferred to that crop species.

For some crops, we plant breeders and geneticist need to insert GMOs for some of the toughest diseases and insect pests. There aren't any alternatives within the species or related species for some viruses, fungi, and bacteria. And transfer from related species is sometimes extremely difficult if not impossible unless one uses biotechnology. Everyone can debate all they want, but if you want to one day pay $20-30/lb for bananas, or some other fruit and vegetable crops, then we will just quit using GMOs altogether. For poorer countries dependent on some of the staple food crops, it truly makes sense in areas where these diseases or insect pests are and have been rampant for years.

SLN Breeder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.140.162 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Should this move to genetically modified crops?

Virtually all of this article concerns crops. No animals have yet been commercialised as GM food. Cotton, one of the major crops main use is as a fibre not a food. Non-food crops like biofuels, Amflora, flowers etc could and should be covered by this article. Many issues regarding GM crops are different than those regarding GM animals. Any GE animal issues would still be covered under Genetically modified organisms. AIRcorn (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No. I've heard "GM food(s)" tons of times, but "GM crops" is a term I've never heard before. For a topic that's so widely known among the general public worldwide, I doubt that a name I've never heard would better fit WP:COMMON than a name I've heard plenty of times. Nyttend (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I will put in a requested move. It is not so much about common name, but the best way to cover the issue. GM crops are not always food, although currently all GM food is a crop. If it isn't going to be moved some form of split will be needed. AIRcorn (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Planned Addition

I am a GGC student performing this as a student project. I plan to add a History section to this article which includes dates and factual information about Genetically Modified Foods. I also plan to add 2-3 illustrations that proceed along the lines of this article. User.Jahmal.council]168.28.23.1 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK; sounds interesting. Please take care to use sources! bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)