Talk:Genetically modified crops

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Genetics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Agriculture (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Plants (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Information about research[edit]

@Jytdog: Why don't we want information about research projects in the encyclopedia? I think it's interesting to catalog the variety of traits researchers have either successfully or unsuccessfully genetically engineered into crops. We don't have to go into the details of each attempt, but look at something like List of unsolved problems in physics that gives a nice summary of the state of the field and the problems researchers are trying to solve. Given the nascent state of the technology right now, I think being more aware of the potential of genetic engineering is part of being an informed citizen. If it doesn't look like there are any interesting future applications for the technology, that can influence one's opinion of whether or not it's worthwhile to allow it. It doesn't have to go in this article, but there should be room in the project somewhere for it.-- Beland (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

hi, that is a very cool idea - the umbrella "list of solved problems". What I feel pretty strongly that we do not want, is a random collection of factoids along the lines of "this group modified X with Y to do Z" based on primary sources. but what you propose is really different from that, and a great idea. I will work on that and am guessing that others who work on this topic will find that interesting too. It is rare that anybody proposes strategic ways to improve the article... fresh eyes are a good thing. Thank you! Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I like the general idea. The best thing to do here would be to find a review article that summarizes notable modifications that have been done. There's obviously a lot of stuff that's happened in the research world that was dismissed or tossed to the way side that don't get any mention, and some that could have been important too. Such a source would point that out what has been worked on and what is currently being worked on. Without that though, we're just listing random research projects without any WP:WEIGHT, which would be especially problematic because so many things just fizzle into nothingness. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
just what i had in mind. :) Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Reversion relating to scientific consensus[edit]

@Jytdog reverted the last in a long series of edits I made, claiming that I had altered the scientific consensus. It was not my intent to do so and reviewing the change again, I don't see in what sense I did so. I'm happy to make sure that my edits leave the prior meaning intact. Please enlighten me. Lfstevens (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

here is the revert. the text in the lead formerly (and now) reads: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food". You had changed that to: "A broad scientific consensus holds that GM food poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food". Do you see it now? 05:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
No. Lfstevens (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
the change from "there is" to "a" is trivializing and i believe you understand English well enough to know that. You also removed "on the market" which is an essential modifier - anti-GMO activists attack this scientific consensus statement constantly (and mind-boggling-ly) claiming WP is saying that any imaginable GM food is as safe as conventional food. Our WP articles have never said that, and the scientific consensus is very explicitly about currently marketed GM food and is stated clearly that way in WP. I hope you will ask questions in the future instead of being defensive. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
So how about "Broad scientific consensus holds that 2014's GM food products pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food" (along with the other changes you tossed in that revert)? Lfstevens (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
If you check across the GM suite, you will see that the language is uniform. Why are you insisting on changing it? (and why do you want to leave it for readers to infer that food on the market 4 years ago was somehow not OK?) Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with Jytdog here. It doesn't seem like this proposed change would be an improvement in any way, but just a change for the sake of change. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The revision is shorter and more accurate (the undated "on the market" implicitly incorporates products as they come out) and I don't think the language implies anything about prior years, but I see I don't have consensus for the change, so that's that. Thanks for the discussion. Lfstevens (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Just for a little background understanding, that is exactly how such text is intended. For something to be on the market, it needs to be generally considered safe through various testing. The text is in line with this and wouldn't really be in a position to change unless evidence came up that something wasn't safe. There's a lot of fundamentals of toxicology, etc. that deals with a lot of nuanced understanding to produce a statement like that. It can be tough for folks just getting into the topic to grasp sometimes very specialized knowledge in the scientific realm, so as Jytdog alluded to, I'd suggest being careful when editing statements about scientific consensus especially. They can be reworked, but often times there's a lot of talk page discussion that lead to the specific text that should be kept in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Reversion re neonics[edit]

Here we go again. I added properly sourced material on neonics to more fully describe how plant protection is conducted in the GMO era in which essentially all of several major crops are GM. Plant protection is an important part of the GMO topic, and yet it was reverted. I'd appreciate the comments of other editors. Lfstevens (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

here is your edit. I see nothing there specific to GM crops. I know of no genetic modification relevant to neonics. Why did you add the content to this article? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. The insert doesn't claim that is a neonic tolerance trait. That's why I didn't put it in the trait section. Such a trait is probably unnecessary, of course. I put it in plant protection, because that's what it's about. Lfstevens (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The content isn't about GMOs, so I see no reason to include it. The source is about neonicotinoid insecticides. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. The source is about neonics as seed coatings for crops (e.g., corn) that are now essentially entirely GM. I.e., most/all GM corn seed has such a coating. It helps complete the picture of plant protection for these crops. That's why I thought it made sense here.
I have heard that biological protections are coming to Monsanto's seeds soon.
i don't get it, lfstevens. there is a lot more that farmers have to do in order to control insects than use a seed treatment. (see here for example). The scope of this article is on GM crops. Focusing on one way farmers control insects in addition to the genetic modification and neglecting all the others is bizarre and UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there is more to it. But just because the current edition is incomplete doesn't strike me as reason to eliminate it. As the article's history documents, I'm trying to build a more complete picture of current practices. As Monsanto will tell you, there is a lot more to their solutions than genetics. It's a complex interaction among a host of factors. I'm open to refactoring this topic, but in its absence I think this article will do as a collector. It's a process, not an endpoint. Lfstevens (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
every article has a scope, and I strongly disagree with the idea of expanding the scope of this article to include all agrichemicals. That makes no sense. The article on intensive crop farming is where you should be looking. Jytdog (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Oranges[edit]

@Jytdog just reverted my addition of a ref in response to a {{cn}} His note indicated that he wanted to keep out things that are not on the market. What's up? I sometimes make multiple changes in one edit. If you object to one of them, why throw the baby out with it? Lfstevens (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. What I wrote in my edit note was "we have generally kept this limited to food that is on the market. if we add everything being tested this article would be enormous. happy to discuss". I did not say that I "want to keep out things that are not on the market". I am happy to discuss to responses to what I actually said - and I note that I should have said "Crops that are actually in production." There are zillions of field trials that have happened and are happening; this article would be insanely long if we started including them. But we can certainly discuss that. Your other changes were just spacing - I am sorry if those spaces were very important to you -- feel free to restore them. On an article with many watchers, like this one, it is better if to change things piecemeal, so that it easier to collaborate. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Given that you did not address my point, I will still try to address yours. I didn't add text about food that is not on the market. There was already something there. All I did was add a supporting ref. Your change did not remove the statement about the field trial. It only removed the reference! I'm presuming that the business about oranges is what you're concerned about. If not, please clarify. As you can see from the history, I make my many, many changes quite incrementally. Apparently the grain is still not fine enough for you. I'll try to accommodate that. I also note that I am happy to correct any errors I make and much prefer that to getting reverted. Lfstevens (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
ah I see now! someone had already added unsourced content about field trials of oranges, and you added a ref. I see now, sorry about that. I just removed the unsourced content about field trials of oranges. Sorry for my mischaracterization of your edit. Generally your edits are very fine grained! Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)