Talk:Genetically modified food

Template:WAP assignment

Misleading presentation

The statement that GM foods on the market pose no risk is subtly different from the statement that GMOs carry no potential risk. In the lede, the cited sources do support the statement about foods "on the market" but they don't support the idea that there is no potential risk from GM foods. Yet the potential risks aren't even mentioned in the lede. Howunusual (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. This article is about actual, not theoretical, GM food. The article on GM controversies goes into the potential risks. Jytdog (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is about the broad topic of genetic modification of food, not just the GM food that is currently on the market. At least, that is a natural assumption for readers to make. So, there is a bit of sleight of hand, in making a statement--in the lede--about a broad scientific consensus that is, actually, only true of food currently on the market. Howunusual (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

the article is currently about actual, not theoretical, GM food. we can of course discuss broadening the scope... Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Howunusual (talk): Thank you for your suggestion. You are correct. Jytdog says that "the article is currently about actual, not theoretical, GM food." Who decided that? I don't agree with that assumption, and it is not stated in the article. I agree with Howunusual (talk) that it is a "sleight of hand", and deliberately misleading. Can we agree to add the content Howunusual (talk) suggested? David Tornheim (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no sleight of hand.. the article is as clear as it could be.

The focus on actual food as opposed to theoretical food (?) or products in development, was decided back when the the articles were reorganized so they would each cover a distinct aspect - we have one on the basic science (Genetic engineering); one broadly covering the various kinds of organisms that have been modified, and why (Genetically modified organism) (which has many, many subarticles); one on the actual crops that have been modified, really focused on the crops themselves and how they are used in agriculture - which was completely lacking when we started - (Genetically modified crops) and one on the resulting food (this one). There are two articles on regulation (Regulation of genetically modified organisms focused on the basic science, and Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms which is focused more on commercialization - the actual release of them into the world). Finally, because the controversies cut across all of them, and had come to dominate all of them in a thicket-y, repetitious, and even self-contradictory way, we created a Genetically modified food controversies article that covered all of it in one place, and per WP:SUMMARY, included a summary of that article in each of the others. We did the same thing with the regulation-of-release article. You will find those two summary sections near the end of each of the articles above, and a set of links at the top orienting the reader where other related topics are. It has worked well to keep the content well-organized and non-overlapping for a few years now. We can discuss a re-organization, anytime you like. It should take the other, related articles into account.

I think it is really important that people have a place to go, to learn about what actual food out there is GM. That content didn't exist in WP before we built it. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It is completely possible that some future GM food might be hazardous to humans. Genetics, while rapidly advancing, is still in its infancy. To assert that some speculated food will be harmful is not helpful. Better to talk about whatever flaws may exist in today's risk assessments and testing protocols. You can't prove that every GM food will be safe (or prove any other prediction.) You can assess the safety of today's products and discuss the risks of today's procedures producing some future harm. That's it. Lfstevens (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Lfstevens (talk). This is one of the major criticisms by GMO critics--insufficient testing. The articles does not reflect that and is therefore lacks NPOV. Let's include information from critics in both the lede and the article about concerns of insufficient testing and showing the major differences between the U.S. and Europe and nations that have GMO bans. None of this is articulated in the article, but instead there is vague language with "big" words like "regulation" and "differences" but no details with useful information. Consumers need to know the difference in regulation between different countries, so they know what is possible, not just which things products are GMO--which incidentally they would know if the industry, AMA, etc. did not so vigorously oppose labelling.David Tornheim (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If we have WP:RS support for the "inadequate testing" claim, I'd say that goes in. I have seen a host of non-RS sources making the claim. As has been repeatedly covered, the issue is not the existence of a claim. It's about sources. Lfstevens (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

____________________
This article is about GMO food. The introduction needs to say there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMO food. While I can not speak to the accuracy of the carefully constructed claim that "that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food," it is clear that the phrasing of this statement gives the false impression that there is scientific consensus on the safety of GMO food, which is not true.

This is the conclusion of an open letter published this year in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe and signed by more than 300 independent researchers. Furthermore, I would like to point out that their introduction begins by noting that there is "a concerted effort by genetically modified (GM) seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists to construct claims that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is ‘over.’"

Considering this, I think it is crucial that Wikipedia-- often the first search result for many subjects-- refrain from furthering the false claims of "scientific consensus." As it is, the exclusion in this article of a statement on the lack of overall consensus on the safety of GMO food is irresponsible and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.76.198 (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I see there is a discussion on the "consensus" claim further below as well. This comment is more appropriate here, however, because it is about the introduction giving a misleading impression. The misleading statement that I commented on above should stay, if it's true. With the addition of noting that there is no scientific consensus on GMO food overall, that statement will no longer be misleading (pending the results of the ongoing discussion).

66.169.76.198 (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
_______________________

Edit request

In the introduction, it would be appropriate to note that genetic modification simply refers to the editing of DNA sequence, and cannot be classified as entirely dangerous or not. It depends on the genes being altered. Much like changes in the human genome can be favorable (e.g. HIV resistance through Ccr5 polymorphism), unfavorable (e.g. CFTR mutation causing cystic fibrosis), or context-dependent (e.g. polymorphism for sickle cell anemia).

Also, what is required to be able to edit this page? I have a PhD from Harvard. Thanks. CellbioPhD (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)cellbiophd

anyone can edit the page. if your edit is not good, it will be reverted. this is natural especially when you are learning, so don't take it personally. please read the introduction again. it does not say that any genetic modification is safe. what it says is very carefully worded. please the comment above, as well. Jytdog (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

CellbioPhD (talk): Thank you for your suggestion. Can we all agree this should be added to the article? David Tornheim (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Politifact: Sen. Donna Nesselbush: three quarters of processed foods have genetically modified organisms

Maybe this article or the sources it links to can be used for something, here or in one of the subarticles. [3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hm. that is a pretty decent source... might be good for a general section - with the correct information from the body of that article :) Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussions on scientific consensus on GMO safety elsewhere

See particularly.

FYI. The claim of "scientific consensus" on GMO safety is being discussed here and was briefly discussed here. David Tornheim (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit

Took a run through this. Feedback encouraged. Comments:

• Reduced wc by about 15%
• Still a lot of extra stuff in there that describes various foods, regardless of whether they are GM. The piece would be better without it, but since I didn't know why it was there, I let it ride.
• Added 1 cn for the Greenpeace sentence.
• Grouped the various kinds of mods.

Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks, i appreciate your run-through. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

me too. I have not had a chance to review your changes yet. David Tornheim (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of what I looked at where you cut out unnecessary words is good editting. This change does more than cut down words and eliminates some meaning:

• Original: "economic concerns raised by the fact that GM seeds (and potentially animals) that are food sources are subject to intellectual property rights owned by corporations."
• Revision: " the fact that some GM seeds that are food sources are subject to intellectual property rights and owned by corporations"

I request you restore it back to the original, because economic concerns are in addition to property rights, and the idea of patenting animals is an additional concern. To shorten it, this might work:

• Proposed Alternative: "economic concerns, especially intellectual property rights over food sources (currently GM seeds), and possibly animals, that become monopolistic." David Tornheim (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I took out "economic concerns" because it was vague. If you have a citeable list of specific concerns, happy to add those. Lfstevens (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please restore these two sentence unless all of the material is found elsewhere in the article

• "Food biotechnology has grown to include cloning of plants and animals, as well as further development in genetically modified foods in recent years."

Cloning is not GM. This article is not about biotek. The last half is too vague. If you have specifics in mind, list and source them. Lfstevens (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Plants are now engineered for insect resistance, fungal resistance, viral resistance, herbicide resistance, changed nutritional content, improved taste, and improved storage."

Need cite. Lfstevens (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In the Process section: Re Regulation: My understanding is that applications are voluntary, but I did not see that in the original or the revision of this section.

Is there such a thing as an involuntary application for anything? Lfstevens (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm stopping here for tonight...David Tornheim (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the scrutiny. Keep it up! Lfstevens (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Detection

I suggest that the emphasis on a single 5-year old primary article for this section is inappropriate. especially since Google Scholar shows it cited by only 25 articles, evidence that it has an insignificant effect on the scientific literature. Inspection of those articles citing it are almost exclusively limited to those discussing soybeans only. It's a suitable reference, but not for the long quote. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

WHO source

GrayDuck156, please explain your objection to the WHO source per your deletions here and here and here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I am a new editor, so I apologize in advance for any more awkwardness. As to the reason I removed that citation, the source does not support the claim. The link simply contains no support for the claim that "[t]here is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food."

In fact, the source contradicts the claim by saying "...it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." Your response, that the sentence does not say "all GMO foods," is not convincing because a reader must assume that subject was implied or the sentence makes little sense. If only an unspecified subset of such foods is included then, logically, 99.9 percent of all GMO food could cause everyone to drop dead if they come within a mile of the stuff and the sentence would still make sense. How about a compromise--change "...food..." to "...an unspecified subset of food..."

I certainly hope that Wikipedia does not change from being a neutral source of information to being a propaganda vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayDuck156 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for talking! That is what we do here when we disagree. it is completely true that it would be idiocy to say that "all GM food is safe". No one here will argue with that. The statement in the article does not say anything about "all GM foods". It says "currently marketed". That is a very, very small subset of "all GM foods" that could ever exist. It is also a very clear subset. The mistake you have made here, is a common one. That is why I wrote in my edit note, "please also read the actual content - it doesn't say "all GM food""

Going further, The WHO source makes it clear that there are three main theoretical concerns. The WHO source also says (emphasis added) "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods." Do you see how this source exactly supports the content now? Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That string of citations in the lead makes it look like we are synthesizing, or at least heavily emphasizing, the point, "'broad scientific consensus,' here, look at it all." Probably just the AAAS citation would do (the rest could go where this reappears in the body text), as the AAAS source says: 'Moreover, the AAAS Board said, 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.”' In this case, that should support "broad scientific consensus," additionally supported by the further citations later on. --Tsavage (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

there are so many citations because so many people hate GMOs and come here attacking the statement. It and its sourcing were upheld in an RfC - a link to that is in the FAQ at the top of the Genetically modified food controversies article. Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with Tsavage that his wording sticks closer to sources without using SYNTH. Justification of the use of SYNTH has no basis in WP policy. I disagree that all discussion should come to halt once a past RfC is referenced; this seems a tactic also not based in PAGs.

I first raised the issue of this "scientific consensus" string of refs at the March Against Monsanto article, where it was inserted early in the creation of the article, but without any reference to the March. It remains one of the most egregious violations of WP:SYNTH on WP that I have seen.

I notice that the "scientific consensus" is elaborated upon in the controversy section. This makes no sense unless it is being used as a rebuttal. Much like in the MAM article, this is a violation of WP:OR. Why should this be under "controversy" rather than in its own section:

There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food. The starting point for assessing GM food safety is to evaluate its similarity to the non-modified version. Further testing is then done on a case-by-case basis to ensure that concerns over potential toxicity and allergenicity are satisfied.

The second portion of this paragraph mentions the labeling aspect, but reads more like a PR statement for the FDA (which is currently run by a former VP and lobbyist for Monsanto):

Although labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in 64 countries, the US does not require this. The FDA's policy is to require a label given significant differences in composition or health impacts. They have not identified such differences in any food currently approved for sale.

I'm seeing violations of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR as well as what seems like Advocacy. (Mentioning this should not be construed as "GMO hating".) petrarchan47คุก 23:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The WP community saw none of those things in the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You're saying that 1/3 of the controversy section being used to reiterate consensus of safety (rather than to discuss controversy) was addressed in an RfC? Can you link to this discussion please? petrarchan47คุก 08:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

After 3 attempts to procure said discussion, I have gone ahead and removed the safety section from "Controversy", and to this section added the percentage of Americans who favor labeling (which is what makes it controversial) as well as the new USDA labeling program. petrarchan47คุก 04:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog:"Do you see how this source exactly supports the content now?" I disagree with your logic. The WHO claiming that some GMO foods "have passed safety assessments" is not equivalent to the WHO pronouncing that broad scientific consensus exists that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food--especially considering that the WHO neglected to cite any independently-administered clinical trials. Moreover, The WHO claiming that some GMO foods are not likely to present risks for human health is not equivalent to the WHO pronouncing that those foods pose "no greater risk to human health than conventional food." Skydiving is not likely to present risks for human health (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachuting#Safety), but that hardly means that skydiving poses no greater risk to human health than other forms of recreation like reading or walking.GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I hear you; that is your interpretation. If you read all the sources there, they add up to the same thing. There is no basis - no mechanism for toxicity - for questioning the safety of currently marketed GM food relative to conventional food. Which is not perfectly safe. The comparison with skydiving is not apt, at all. Jytdog (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: "If you read all the sources there, they add up to the same thing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I think this sentence is clear in saying that your defense is not valid. "There is no basis...for questioning the safety of currently marketed GM food relative to conventional food." This is your opinion, not a statement in the WHO web page. "Which is not perfectly safe." I do not see how this sentence relates to whether the WHO citation supports the claim in the article. "The comparison with skydiving is not apt, at all." Please explain.GrayDuck156 (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What we do here is read reliable sources and summarize them. Summarizing is not synthesis. really, you are beating a dead horse here. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The point is that the WHO article lends no support to the sentence the citation claims to support. None whatsoever. And, as I pointed out below, none of the commenters in that somewhat-related RfC argued in favor of keeping the WHO citation.GrayDuck156 (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest taking a look at this conversation where the consensus statement was recently discussed. There's more going on than just the WHO statement, but we've got adequate sourcing for the statement in general. Also, you might want to read WP:THREAD since you're new to the talk pages. If you indent your comments, we can know who you're replying to. Your last comment technically started a new thread in this section, but that's fine to break things up too for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Thanks for the tips. With regard to your substantive comment, my concern with the WHO citation is not that it is overkill, but that it simply does not lend support to the claim in the article. You and Jytdog have been specific about which sentence you believe lends credence to the sentence, but I have explained why I disagree. Thus, I think you and Jytdog need to explain your analysis in more detail to justify your position that the citation should remain in the article. Please note that I think some of the comments in this thread have become a little off topic. My concern, at least in this context, is only with the WHO citation and its failure to support the preceding sentence in the article.

And I don't agree. And neither does the community. Again, please read the RfC, and please read about RfCs (here WP:RFC) before you continue arguing. You cannot change things by pounding away on dead horses, that the community has already affirmed. Nothing has changed science-wise since the RfC. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog:The RfC addressed whether the sentence should remain, not whether the WHO citation should remain. Only one commenter addressed that citation; his assessment of it was entirely negative.GrayDuck156 (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

not explicitly mentioning it, is just that. the statement and its sourcing were upheld. And the source does support the statement. I have no idea what is at stake for you here. You clearly misread the content when you started and you are just shifting ground here. I suggest you drop the stick. Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog Re: "I have no idea what is at stake for you here." What is at stake for you in preserving a citation that does not support the claim presented within the text?? Please read: WP:WHYCITE. GregKaye 15:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment placed out of chronological sequence

@Jytdog: With regard to the citation overkill, there is no need for it because "broad scientific consensus" (or some equivalent wording) appears to be supported in this case by the AAAS statement, for one. If each of those reports actually say there is general consensus (which they all do not), then they are redundant, especially in a lead where no citations are required if the material is a summary of body content. If those sources are simply individual examples of "no harm" findings, then this is some form of synthesis, where a conclusion is being drawn from a number of items - it is not a simple summary to add up a series of documents pronouncing on complex scientific issues to arrive at a brief original summary phrase (no matter how routinely that may be done by topic experts in their professional circles). My point, though, is that a line of citations does not give confidence to the reader.

The RfC on "broad scientific consensus" is not "the WP community" it is a dozen or so editors (WP:CONLIMITED), taking the "informal process for requesting outside input" of an WP:RFC on a daughter article Talk page, attempting to approve original research against core guidance, WP:RS/AC "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, 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."

This, like other similar arguments I have seen recently on various science and medicine pages, seem to be all about the editors and their opinions, often to the detriment of content accessibility, when our only good reason to be editing is to write a usable encyclopedia for general readers. My original comment here is about editorial presentation within all other content guidance, and the argument in reply is about other considerations that apparently override basic readability, meanwhile, hitting a wall of citations in a lead makes me wonder as reader what is going on, and begin to mistrust what I am reading. The reason for the multiple citations, as I interpret from the reply, is "citation overkill as a preemptive measure to satisfy the inevitable unreasonable anti-GMO editors who will routinely show up, this tactic in part based on an article-level RfC that attempts to override core guidance by legitimizing a piece of original research." That's a lot for an editor to contend with, and yet it is tossed off as routine. It's not a good state of things. --Tsavage (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "article level RfC". The RfC was on a specific statement, with its sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with nearly everything said by GrayDuck156, Tsavage and Petrarchan47 about the problems with the claimed "scientific consensus" statement and the use of the WHO statement and other sources in its defense and agree that the sentence is little more than WP:OR and WP:SYN. The sources for that WP:OR originate from pro-GMO industry biased writers like Pamela Ronald and Jon Entine (and his Genetic Literacy Project). These problems exist regardless of conflicted commentary in the old RfC, which had numerous valid objections, was not even close to unanimous, which even the closer noted was less than conclusive about the use of the sources. The closer also noted concerns with bias and balance that were oft repeated in that RfC, before and after that RfC. Above GrayDuck156 said "Please note that I think some of the comments in this thread have become a little off topic." I do want to respect that concern; however, in talking about whether the WHO statement can be used to support the sentence comes in the context of the RfC, the other sources, the WP:OR issues and the problem with undue weight, etc., so it is hard for me to discuss without considering the entire context that sentence is found which makes it so problematic and biased. Please also note previous concerns I raised here and LesVegas raised here, and sources I provided here that challenge the bogus "scientific consensus" statement. I will likely create a new topic just about the "scientific consensus" as I did previously, or we can continue here. David Tornheim (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• As is discussed here, the evidence for the "broad scientific consensus" claim is very bad. The dateless authorless WHO FAQ especially so. GrayDuck is correct that this source makes direct statements against the claim at hand! As can be seen from the linked page, the WHO FAQ has been used to support the questionable "scientific consensus" claim for more than two years. These sources flagrantly violate the purported standards for reliable sources on medical issues (WP:MEDRS), while peer-reviewed literature reviews — e.g. (Redacted) — are disregarded. Yet Wikiproject Medicine, despite numerous red flags (ping User:Doc James ping User:SandyGeorgia) seems unwilling to act. The reluctance to change the "scientific consensus" statement undermines the credibility of WikiProject Medicine and of Wikipedia as a whole, and represents a serious ethical issue. groupuscule (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Groupuscule. Science-based editors follow the science. It is apparently time to affirm the RfC we already had. Anew for each generation (and remnants of the old who cannot drop the stick....) Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your RfC is unnecessarily confusing, and distracts from my main point here, and what seems to be one of the overall general points in this thread, which is the wall of citations. --Tsavage (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

So what are we expected to do here, just tell Jytdog how brilliant he is and how foolish we were to question the inclusion of the WHO citation? He has not made a serious attempt at discussing the issue with an open mind. He has not provided any quotation on that web page that is equivalent to the sentence it purports to substantiate, nor has he explained why he thinks the WHO FAQ lends support to the sentence (to say nothing about whether it does so without violating the synthesis rule). The onus is clearly on Jytdog to continue this discussion without insulting attempts at premature conclusion ("I suggest you drop the stick"). GrayDuck156 (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not contributors. You started a thread on a specific source; others took it to the broader discussion of the consensus statement as a whole. That happens here. Let's see where things stand on the bigger question and if you still believe you are right we can address that next. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No; we have obligation or reason to suspend this discussion until you have found somebody who will take your side. If you have no basis for your position--and it is becoming rather obvious that you do not--, we should proceed on that basis. GrayDuck156 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The FAQ WHO page never claims that there is a scientific consensus on whether GM foods are as safe as conventional foods and, considering their partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme on the contradictory International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, published in 2009, I doubt that is how the WHO meant for their page to be interpreted. The assessment reports that there are a limited number of properly designed and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health related to GM food. It also notes that, of the limited numbers of studies published, some have found adverse effects. This partnership suggests that the WHO would not agree with your evaluation of their FAQ page and, even if that is what they meant to say, the UN assessment points out that such a conclusion of consensus is wrong. If you all have been so confused about how the WHO feels on this issue, why don't you just send them an email instead of applying your personal interpretations to their page? Their contact form is here: http://www.who.int/about/contact_form/en/ 66.169.76.198 (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with anyone requesting that the WHO take an official position on the sentence. While we wait for them to do so, however, the current citation needs to substantiate the statement. GrayDuck156 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

anything communicated privately from the WHO would not mean anything in WP. Perhaps they might update their website....Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we have achieved consensus that the WHO citation should be deleted. We all agree that the web page does not directly state that there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food. We also know that Wikipedia policy forbids claims of academic consensus when no direct assertion exists in the purported sources and that "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus) Even pretending that the direct statement problem could be overcome, we all seem to agree that the WHO cite does not even contain the lesser claim that any subset of GMO foods pose "no greater risk to human health than conventional food." Thus, it adds no support for the sentence whatsoever. It might support other relevant assertions, like "GM foods currently available on the international market...are not likely to present risks for human health," but not the sentence it currently purports to support.

Jytdog has suggested that we should count the votes of the people who have tangentially supported the citation in the RfCs. Wikipedia policy is clear that they are not relevant to the discussion: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean...the result of a vote. ... In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever." At no point has anyone in either this thread or either of the related RfCs presented any argument for how any statement in the WHO page supports the specific sentence at issue. The commenters in the new RfC are mainly engaging in a political debate about GMO foods, which is not relevant to this discussion.

If someone is worried that the article will not put GMO foods in an adequately positive light without the citation, surely you can find better ways of improving the article than insisting on keeping a bogus citation.

All that said, I think the time is coming soon to go ahead and remove the citation. If Jytdog insists on trying to block that move, I think we need to pursue higher-level dispute resolution. GrayDuck156 (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the conversation that followed on your original post soon overtook your point and went to broader issues. That happens here. It would be a bad move to mess with the the sourcing of the statement under discussion in the RfC, while the RfC is underway - that would be disruptive. There is WP:NODEADLINE here. Let the RfC run its course. Oh - and please read WP:RFC - it is not a headcount. (this is what I mean - you hardly understand how things work here) Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Please correct me if I am wrong in counting but so far editors within this discussion who are favour of the removal of the WHO citation are: GrayDuck156 Tsavage petrarchan47 Kingofaces43 David Tornheim GregKaye with the one editor so far against being: Jytdog,

Re Grayduck156's comment, "Jytdog has suggested that we should count the votes of the people who have tangentially supported the citation in the RfCs." I agree with the view that "Wikipedia policy is clear that they are not relevant to the discussion" However if any editor regards that a wider consensus is required then one way forward would be to ping all contributors of, for instance, the mentioned discussion.

Meanwhile I do not think that consensus here could be any more clear with WP:consensus being defined as, the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals. Correct me if there is any p&g that indicates otherwise but I think that the most appropriate way forward would be to make the change and give notification in the RfC of both the change and the presence of this discussion so as to open up to other views. We also, I think, would require a p&g based reason for the retention of the WHO citation should there be support for it to be kept. GregKaye 15:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Greg, look again at who is actually talking about the WHO source (you can use control F and look). You will see that only GrayDuck, me, and kingofaces directly discuss it; david tornheim and groupuscule mention it in the course of discussing their unhappiness with the consensus statement generally, and tsavage and petrarcan don't even mention it. the conversation broadened with tsavage's remark which came right after mine. everybody else talks about broader issues and that includes tornheim and groupuscule. and kingofaces does not say that he opposes use of the source. Per the WP:TPG please do not misrespresent what other people write. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

JytdogYou write things like, "do not misrespresent what other people write".

I said "Please correct me if I am wrong in counting" and openly pinged all editors for comment:

Tsavage said, "That string of citations in the lead makes it look like we are synthesizing, or at least heavily emphasizing, the point," and s/he seems to me to regard the whole thing as unjustified by its citations.

david tornheim said, "I agree with nearly everything said by GrayDuck156, Tsavage and Petrarchan47 about the problems with the claimed "scientific consensus" statement and the use of the WHO statement and other sources in its defense and agree that the sentence is little more than WP:OR and WP:SYN." and the same applies.

groupuscule said, the evidence for the "broad scientific consensus" claim is very bad. The dateless authorless WHO FAQ especially so. GrayDuck is correct that this source makes direct statements against the claim at hand!"

petrarchan47 said, "I'm seeing violations of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR as well as what seems like Advocacy." basically seeing the content as unsupported by citations inclusive of the one from WHO

Fair enough about kingofaces who has not stated a view one way or another and who was infact the initial editor to revert the initial citation removal which was then with comment "Restore unexplained removal of source". GregKaye 19:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

At an entomology meeting, so I won't be able to jump into this conversation for another day or two. I will toss my hat in for now to say the source should not be removed. Glancing over the conversation though, I have not seen any arguments that would result in consensus that the source should be removed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also Greg, please strike your characterization of me agreeing with removing the source. Nothing I've said or done here in terms of edits should have ever led someone to believe that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not support removal of the WHO source, but as Sarah SV notes, we aren't quoting them accurately. They say "it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." I support adding this to the article. petrarchan47คุก 04:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned this elsewhere, but to keep things on topic here, we actually do accurately represent the source with the current content. That part omitted from that sentence you quoted is, "Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." The nuance in that is represented with the currently on the market statement of safety. It's basically the source saying the equivalent of WP:CRYSTAL for concrete statements of safety. We could start getting into risk assessment of GM techniques compared to normal breeding where the part you bolded isn't entirely true in reality, but that's a pony to break for a different day with everything else going on here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Voting is not consensus, but in the interest of a straw count, i add my voice to sharing the concerns of GrayDuck156. We need to hold dialog with logical integrity and answer questions genuinely, and work together to arrive at logical conclusions with good faith toward each other. I do sense an atmosphere of obstructionism here. SageRad (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't get a straight answer, and, besides ownership issues, obstructionism does seem to rule this talk page. I'm trying, but if this fails, is anyone aware of what course of action would be best? petrarchan47คุก 20:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not let the currently-open RFC directly related to this topic run its course? Zad68 21:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Intentionally or not, the current RfC arose as a distraction from this thread, which is about sourcing and individual sources. The RfC seems hopelessly ill-formed: we can only arrive at consensus on a statement of "broad scientific consensus" based on sources, and with 18 or so sources cited, the RfC is attempting to discuss all 18, including lists of publication dates, excerpts from each, and so forth. If the "scienctific consensus" conclusion is not a synthesis of a number of those sources, then each and every source should be equal as far as supporting the statement, and vary only in quality of the source. So why not reduce the sources to the two or three most reliable and discuss the issue from there? The RfC as it is now does not seem to be workable, and I'm not clear on why it was called. --Tsavage (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

what is the source of this notion that "each and every source should be equal as far as supporting the statement"? Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong: the sources are supporting the "broad scientific consensus" statement, therefore (per WP:RS/AC), the sources should directly say that there is scientific consensus (in those or very close words, "general agreement among the large majority of scientists," or the like). If any one source does not itself say that directly, it does not support the statement, and there is no reason for it to be cited. The remaining sources can then be considered for reliability under WP:VERIFY and related guidance: is an AAAS BoD statement reliable for this purpose? is the opinion of an expert in the field who is an active public promoter of GM food reliable? and so forth. Is that not the process? --Tsavage (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm reminded of this comment from the last RfC, which might answer your question. Analogous descriptions can be given for at least the first five sources. Sunrise (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sunrise: Please see this further consideration of the AAAS statement (beginning in the third comment down with the numbered points). --Tsavage (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I see no issue with the WHO source being used here, which is perfectly suitable for the purpose. Yobol (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"It would be a bad move to mess with the the sourcing of the statement under discussion in the RfC, while the RfC is underway - that would be disruptive." Removing the citation would not affect the sourcing of the statement under discussion in the RfC. The paragraph at issue in the RfC does not even exist in the article. GrayDuck156 (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

GrayDuck, part of the process of working toward consensus is adapting. You are waging a full-court press here, which is not helping you.Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC - "The scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food."

In 2013 we had an RfC, here, that upheld challenges to the scientific consensus statement below (presented with its full paragraph):

A broad scientific consensus holds that eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population. In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated that "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." The American Medical Association, the National Academies of Sciences and the Royal Society of Medicine have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GM food have been reported and/or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

References

That statement undergoes constant challenge, so it is perhaps time to review it again. The question: Do the sources support the content? Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• note amended statement to more clearly focus on "eating" to clarify that it is a statement about food safety. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

and notified each per who already !voted. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Question: Why are we debating a paragraph that does not exist in the article? GrayDuck156 (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

non-neutral addition to RfC statement. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Additional comment: A current issue is with the use of a large number of citations to support the summary/conclusion of "broad scientific consensus." If this is clearly stated in solid secondary sources, it should take one or two citations to establish, not a dozen or more. Citation overkill, conveying an impression of biased content, and synthesis of at least some of these sources (WP:RS/AC), are specific issues central to this RfC. --Tsavage (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Agree. TFD (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC) just noticed this earlier today. this is not an appropriate way to amend the RfC statement as it makes actual claims instead of asking a neutral question. I hatted it earlier, then removed that. am restoring the hat. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

discussion of amendment

@Jytdog: I disagree with your making changes to the original RfC statement, which has been under discussion to this point. Please restore to the original version. --Tsavage (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Changing the goal post after so many editors have weighed in invalidates this RfC, and gives support for claims that the statement being contested, along with its constantly changing string of SYNTH sources, is seriously problematic. Normally WP articles simply summarize RS, not make up new claims and shuffle about afterwards trying to find validation. If there is a consensus about the safety of eating GM foods, there should be source saying this besides a WP article. petrarchan47คุก 21:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Unless you are actually proposing the underlining in the article itself, the underlining is not "changing" the RfC or text, but I have to agree that it is illegitimate, because it's a way of showcasing/canvassing your particular opinion, and minimizes the fact that editors were evaluating this statement as a reader would, i.e. not necessarily very carefully. I was aware of this distinction which is why I did not get into Roundup Ready and environmental effects. You might say that I strayed from the straight-and-narrow of this paragraph when I speculated on the potential effects of modifying canola to produce "fish oil" in order to feed to factory farmed fish in order that they contain recommended levels of "fish oil" components, but IMHO that is a largely bureaucratic loophole around the fact that the transgenic oil is being consumed by humans, or at least, not too irrelevant to mention to illustrate a principle. Wnt (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, I see you made the change to secure a "vote" from BlueRaspberry, as he clearly states in his comment below, where he strikes his Oppose and says: "Support. The statement and this RfC have been modified to clarify that this is about the safety of eating the food." What is this RfC actually about, anyhow? --Tsavage (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

the scope came up in several comments, and food safety was always the intended scope. the RfC question is very clearly stated and neutral: Do the sources support the content? which arose in the thread above. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You've materially altered what we have been discussing, to the degree that an editor has switched his position based on your changes. You can't tailor things as you go to get the outcomes you're after, which seems to be the case. Please revert, and first get consensus from the participants here who have already considered the originally wording. --Tsavage (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not "material" - it is a clarification that reflects other instances of the statement, as noted in the discussion below. I have seen RfCs amended before in just this way and nothing in the RfC instructions forbids it. The changes made are clear and I notified everyone who had !voted so people are free to change their votes. So, I don't agree that it is not legitimate. I posted a question at WT:RFC to get others thoughts on it, here. Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I don't agree that it is simply a "clarification," it changes the interpretation of the sentence, and it changes the framing of the RfC. While the original version could be interpreted to mean the same thing as your changes, the original also gave the impression of much broader safety - this is supported for one by the fact that Blue Rasberry commented in detail and reversed his position based on the wording changes.

As far as the RfC itself, the statement put up for comment ("The statement should be self-contained, and should not assume that the section title is available" WP:RFC) is: "In 2013 we had an RfC, here, that upheld challenges to the scientific consensus statement below (presented with its full paragraph):" and included a paragraph that was presumably upheld. Changing that paragraph makes the reference to "the scientific consensus statement below" and "its full paragraph" unclear: editors who arrived before the changes would have read different material than after, and it is implied that the original paragraph preexisted and was upheld by RfC. To fix that, you would need to change the ambiguous "statement below" and "its full paragraph," which would mean altering the central RfC statement. You're essentially rewording the RfC mid-discussion; regardless if the RfC was not well-constructed, it is well underway now.

At the risk of being accused of personalizing my comments, I find this a tactic, to create situations where editors either reply and perhaps in so doing seem fanatically opposed to the central issue by countering everything, or keep silent on what may be seen as perversions of a good faith process. For my part, as the record shows, I came here simply to question the large number of citations used to support the statement, and THIS is where it lead. --Tsavage (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

i'll just ignore your accusation of bad faith on my part, as i usually do. as i wrote above, the statement has always been about the safety of GM food'. safety... food. food safety. the statement has never said anything about the safety of anything like "GMOs" broadly nor GM crops. the object was sloppy. what needed clarification was, that food safety is about whether it is ok to eat food. it is simple clarification. not a change in scope. you can say it wasn't til you are blue in the face but if you look at the history of the talk page discussions, it has always been about food safety. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing here with what may have been intended by the original (as I already said), or even with the conclusion that a majority of announcements by scientific organizations and others have indicated no problem to date with eating GM food compared to conventional food, only with the way changes have been made to this RfC. There are no set rules, on the other hand, everything can't be a loophole used to create more complication (we now have a changed RfC AND an informal request for comment on the validity of that change on the RFC Talk page). Common sense suggests, considering the way this RfC was worded, and the amount of participation, that you simply don't alter it at this point. --Tsavage (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

i have no questions on the validity of anything here. i started the discussion at WT:RFC so your concerns could be addressed in an appropriate forum. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Support This is a politically hot topic; and people are emotional about food. But the science is clear, and the sources support the content. No science has emerged since 2013 that changes the scientific consensus. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The rationale given here suggests that the citations do not adequately support the claim. The sentence "No science has emerged since 2013 that changes the scientific consensus" does not pertain, in any way, to whether the existing citations support the claim. The sentence is merely a personal opinion that is designed to provide additional support to the claim. But if the claim needs support beyond the listed citations, those citations must not be sufficient to substantiate the claim. GrayDuck156 (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support The broad scientific consensus about the safety of GM foods is clear. The consensus for the inclusion on the material of this stands. I was unable to find any major scientific evidence suggesting that this has changed since 2013. Instead I have found a 2015 Pew Research Center study that found that the percentage of AAAS scientists which agree that GM Foods are safe (88%) is even higher than the percentage that agree that humans are causing global warming (87%).[4] 88% of scientists is enough to establish a broad scientific consensus on top of the sources already provided. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If you believed that the sources supported the content, why did you feel the need to search for additional support? GrayDuck156 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@GrayDuck156: Because I exercise due diligence and research the subject before commenting at RfCs rather than merely spouting my personal beliefs? Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of this RfC is not to debate GMO foods, it is to discuss whether the citations support the sentence in the article. The WHO citation, specifically, does not support it. Nowhere on that web page does the WHO assert that "[t]here is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." Jytdog is arguing that that the WHO article, taken together with the other citations, leads to that conclusion. Even if that argument was true (which it is not, at least with respect to the WHO citation), the rules of Wikipedia explicitly disallow such synthesis: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. ...[A]ny statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."WP:RS/AC GrayDuck156 (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

So instead of commenting on the additional source I just provided, you are cherry picking one source that only moderately supports the statement. 88% can be considered "most scientists" by any reasonable definition of the word. Trying to imply that these statements provided by Jytdog, are synth is inaccurate and a very broad interpretation of the policy. WP:SYNTHNOT definitely applies here, specifically this section. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel I'm butting in on your argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the Pew survey doesn't directly support "broad scientific consensus," does it? That survey queries around 4,000 US-based scientists (defined by AAAS membership) of all sorts, not specialists in any GM-related area. So as "scientists," I guess we can assume that they are expert in evaluating evidence-based findings, but beyond that, it's not clear how many have actually reviewed GM food research in any systematic way, professionally or personally. Pew seems to be comparing views of the US general population, with the views of a subset, "scientists," on a range of topics, including GM food. It's not about scientific evidence. (And WP:RS/AC seems startlingly explicit and on-point for this situation, compare to many WP rules.) --Tsavage (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it's more recent and those editors who disagree continue to raise the subject? Lfstevens (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• The 2015 Pew science and society study (of US AAAS scientists and US public) has some startling/troubling stuff. Compared to 88% of surveyed scientists believing GM food is safe to eat, 57% of the public believes it's unsafe, and 67% of the public believe scientists don't understand the health risks. Meanwhile, 52% of the scientists believe the best scientific info guides government regulation sometimes/never (as opposed to always/mostly). It seems like a nightmare of mistrust all around (at least, in the US), and it's near impossible to find the line between scientific evidence, and interpretation through regulation and through political considerations in general. A lot of this seems US-based, where a big chunk of the money, technology, and reporting comes from. A member of the "bordering on scientifically illiterate American public" (per one commentary on the Pew study) coming to this article and finding 18-19 citations to support a simply stated conclusion is not likely to be any better off for it, and probably more confused and annoyed than ever. Working out the language, to readable, easily verifiable standards, seems quite important here, since we're talki9ng about our planetary food supply. :) --Tsavage (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support the discussion of GMOs covers a broad range of issues, but safety to human health isn't one of them, and the scientific consensus continues to hold that current marketed GMOs have no novel risks to human health.TypingAway (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This rationale does not pertain to the listed citations (either the citations listed in the article or the citations listed in the opening of this RfC) and, therefore, does not substantively address the question at issue in this RfC. As such, the opinion expressed should not be given any weight. WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever." GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment If it takes (by my count) 18 19 sources to support "broad scientific consensus," something is wrong. If we could reduce that to the best two or three, it should be relatively simple to determine if support is there. --Tsavage (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, something is wrong. We have good sources for broad scientific consensus, and some people wish there wasn't, so they basically keep waving them away one by one and demanding more. You can see this in the reaction to eh AAAS paper. This is a high level summary by a scientific body of national standing, yet people are treating it as if it were a primary source, because they don't like what it says. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Guess there is no accounting for taste! As far as I can tell (from a quick look, Jytdog would know the details, he was involved all through), this heavily cited "broad scientific consensus" wording started in the lead of the GM food controversies article, Nov-2012 (related Talk discussion), with six citations, including AAAS discussed here and five others, which I skimmed for conclusions. At a glance, none of them seem to clearly support the wording of "broad consensus," so it's likely the later accumulation of citations was meant to further compensate for a lack of a definitive source or two. Here is a summary from one of the original five other citations:

"All evidence evaluated to date indicates that unexpected and unintended compositional changes arise with all forms of genetic modification, including genetic engineering. Whether such compositional changes result in unintended health effects is dependent upon the nature of the substances altered and the biological consequences of the compounds. To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."[5]

From that to "broad scientific consensus for no greater risk to human health than conventional food" as a simple paraphrase or summary may be fine for some but understandably not for others (to me, the former is quite far from the fairly resounding endorsement that is the latter, more of a "so good, so far"; am I missing the expert interpretation of the careful report language, or is keeping an eye out and hoping for the best, scientifically, all that's reasonably expected?). It seems to come down to what constitutes reliable sourcing for this particular (fully optional) statement. --Tsavage (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Question and comment Do any of these sources specifically say what WP is saying? If the phrase "broad scientific consensus" does not exist in any of the refs, we cannot use it per SYNTH and OR. If there is a strong source for this phrase, we can use just the one or two sources using it. No RfC can override these basic rules of WP. We don't get to summarize and come up with novel conclusions. Further, I wonder if anyone has done the work of investigating whether the sources used are what we would consider independent. petrarchan47คุก 04:33, 30 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage has done our homework for us. Worth highlighting is: The AAAS source is a statement opposing mandatory GMO labeling. petrarchan47คุก 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• No Support per Tsavage, especially here, here, here and here, and via No scientific consensus on GMO safety: A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired. There is no consensus, and WP cannot continue to air this claim. petrarchan47คุก 05:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That source carries no weight against sources supplied in support of the overwhelming consensus that GM foods are just as safe as the genetically modified foods humans have been consuming for thousands of years. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Now we have two sources. One a survey of AAAS and another an organized statement of a group of critics. I'd say the survey has to be counted more trustworthy. And that's in addition to the other, earlier sources. Is there a countering survey that supports the critique? Lfstevens (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"An organized statement of a group of critics" - I am not sure where you are sourcing this information, but half of the group identifies as pro-GMO. The group is critical of the "GMO's are safe for sure" claim; their criticism is based on solid reasoning and well-sourced evidence presented in the paper. And finally, there is a serious problem with the AAAS and other sources used for the consensus statement, which Grey Duck elucidates here. petrarchan47คุก 05:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking you didn't read the source. And you are showing a lack of understanding about what genetically modified foods are. Hybridized foods have been around thousands of years, but GMOs were born in a lab in the 90's. The source above should be read with great care, as these 300 scientists and doctors have called out Wikipedia specifically in the document. See reference 16, and note their mentions of an "Internet website". This is a serious black eye for WP. petrarchan47คุก 08:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Think what you will, the source remains worthless nonetheless. And no, it's not my lack of understanding that is showing. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Remember this discussion isn't about whether GMOs are or are not safe or whatever. It's about what the scientific community has concluded, if anything. Lfstevens (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

As of this January, the referenced letter "No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety" has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe so, I do not think that your opinion of this letter as "worthless" is warranted. The letter also points out that the review "A Decade of EU-funded GMO Research" fails to provide "evidence for sweeping claims about the safety of any single GM food or of GM crops in general" because none of the studies cited in the review tested commercialized GM food or studied effects for a period longer than 90 days. This EU review is used to support the claim that "food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" in the introduction to this article, and so the EU review should be removed from the list of citations supporting that claim.

It's not worthless, but it doesn't per se refute the "consensus" claim. It shows the existence of a competing point of view. Now the question is, which view reflects the consensus, if there is one. Consensus isn't unanimity... Lfstevens (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If your point of disagreement with the "No Scientific Consensus" letter is because it is a letter (now published in a peer-reviewed journal) rather than a study, please note that I discuss the reasons why scientists have frequently been unable to legally study and publish health studies related to GM food further down in the discussion. The issue of scarce independent health studies on GM food is also noted by the United Nations Environment Programme in their International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, published in 2009. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not the point of disagreement. The point of disagreement is that the AAAS statement is a review statement by a scientific body of national standing, whereas your preferred source is a letter to a journal by a group of individuals. The problems is one of WP:PARITY. It does not help your case that their first cited source has already been retracted once, and there have been serious questions about its re-publication and the way the authors chose to go about it. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, the UN and AND both state that there is no scientific consensus. The reports from these two groups were extensive, collaborative efforts. The AAAS letter from the Board of Directors is a short statement of opinion from a small group of people, one of whom is a former lobbyist with the biotech company Sigma-Aldrich Chemical. The AAAS BoD statement was issued shortly before a vote on GM food labeling in California, a bill which Sigma-Aldrich Chemical opposed. If we are to interpret this letter as uninfluenced by her questionable connection to the issue, then please explain why you think it's reasonable to then be so critical of the connections that you question regarding the "No Scientific Consensus" letter, which was signed by more people, and published in a peer-reviewed journal. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources please. They may allow us to move forward. Lfstevens (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• How's this, Lfstevens? (TL;DR: 2011 peer reviewed study of recent peer-reviewed literature finds that half showed no differences between GM foods and conventional, and the other half found cause for concern.) petrarchan47คุก 05:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• support sources support the content--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This opinion should not be given any weight for two reasons. First, it contains no substantive contribution to the discussion. According to WP:TALKDONTREVERT, "The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever." Second, the editor fails to distinguish between the sources that are actually listed in the article and those that are listed in the opening of this RfC. GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Sources seem to support the statement. Petrarchan's source merits consideration; however I'd like to see some more studies supporting it to dispel concerns about due weight. Plus, it seems to talk more about reliability concerns of the current research (which don't necessarily invalidate it) and less about the contested statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you talking about the statements and sources in the actual article, or the paragraph and citations listed in the opening of this RfC? GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose / not sure I have not followed this issue so do not know all of the context, nor do I know the sources so well, but I expect that "A broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food" is not an accurate reflection of the sources. What I would expect to see is a claim that ""A broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk for an individual to eat than conventional food". I think the intention here is to focus on the safety of including GM food in an individual person's diet, and I think the scientific consensus is that there is no distinction between GM food and conventional food at the level of the individual. I do not recognize that level of scientific agreement concerning all other aspects of genetically modified food, including those listed at Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Environment which have nothing to do with its safety to eat. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry the statement is only meant to be about eating (e.g. the version of this in the lead of the GM food controversy article, says "While there is concern among the public that eating genetically modified food may be harmful, there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from these crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." I agree that this is a more clear statement. I do think the paragraph is very clear that it is about eating food, and not the many other issues that are controversial (e.g environment, market dynamics, etc). But is that why you are opposing, b/c the sentence is not explicit enough, that it is about eating GM food? thx Jytdog (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog Yes, my opposition is only for the lack of clarity that the consensus is about safety as nutrition for individuals. I think there is not scientific consensus of the safety of GM food as a societal food source considering environmental impact and social issues. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OK,Bluerasberry (sorry to keep pinging you - if you are watching this page let me know and i will stop) - would you be OK with the statement above from the GM food controversy article? If so I will amend; that is reaasonable. I believe the "support" votes have been directed to the 'safe-to-eat' idea, as many of them said. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog I still direct my support to the "safe to eat" concept and withhold it for other contexts. With the claim "there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from these crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" I still think too much is expressed regarding consensus beyond "safe to eat", so I do not support that statement. I would like to pause discussing this because so many others have ideas here. "Safe to eat" is a concise statement that probably works, or maybe not. I am not sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Quoting directly from one of the sources presented on this page, "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." I support any statement which expresses that and does not imply more. I struck my oppose to indicate that I support the intent of what is being discussed here, even if I disagree with the proposed wording. I hope that the wording can be changed to bring focus to "safe to eat" and not express consensus for "safe in all contexts". Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Support The statement and this RfC have been modified to clarify that this is about the safety of eating the food. Yes, I agree that the sources support the claim made here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The WHO web page does not contain a statement that is equivalent to the sentence it purports to substantiate. Nor does it claim that any subset of GMO foods pose "no greater risk to human health than conventional food." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayDuck156 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you have any thoughts on the other 7 sources used to substantiate that statement? TypingAway (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• That is the same question we are asking of readers, to verify a sweeping statement like "broad scientific consensus" with a total of 19 cited sources. That's unreasonable. Big statement, solid source, else we have to find a more accessible way to summarize the research, satisfying both readability and reader verifiability. --Tsavage (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Jytdog is arguing in the WHO citation thread, above, that anyone who expresses support for the citations collectively is in complete agreement with each and every one of those citations. I want to be clear that I do not believe that the WHO citation supports the claim. GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not argue that. Also noting here that this !vote is not responsive to the question but is rather voting on a different question - namely whether one of the sources - WHO - supports the statement. (The AAAS disagrees with that assessment, but GrayDuck is entitled to their opinion Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

In the thread above regarding the WHO citation, you argued that all discussion should stop on the basis that this RfC subsumes that question. Now you are arguing that the two matters are mutually exclusive. Were you wrong then and right now or right now and wrong then? GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• • This RfC has, in my opinion, two fatal flaws. First, the paragraph at issue does not even exist in the article. Are we debating the actual article or are we debating the paragraph listed above that is not included in the article? Second, the question is hopelessly ambiguous. It can be interpreted as "Do any of the sources support the content?" or "Do all of the sources support the content?" An affirmative finding for the first question should not be sufficient to conclude that the material should be retained (or adding it, if we are talking about the paragraph listed above). The material should only be retained if it includes citations that are both reliable and directly support the claim. Combining unreliable sources that directly support a claim with reliable sources that do not support a claim does not sum to a claim that has reliable sources that directly support the claim. GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If the question is "Do any of the sources support the content?," my answer is no. (I am talking about the sentence at issue in the article, not the fabricated paragraph in the RfC opening.) According to WP:RS/AC, "[t]he statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. ...[a]ny statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." None of the sources directly state that such a consensus exists as stated in the article. The only one that comes close is the AAAS citation. However, the AAAS opinion piece has two problems. First, it uses the phrase "conventional plant improvement techniques" rather than "conventional food." That difference is problematic because "conventional food" arguably does not include any genetically engineered food at all whereas "conventional plant improvement techniques" arguably do include plants that are genetically engineered without genetically-modified organisms. At least one author, Dr. William Davis, argues that some non-GMO genetic engineering has been very harmful. The other problem with the AAAS source is that it is not a reliable source. According to WP:RELIABLE, "[a]rticles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources... Questionable sources are those...which rely heavily on...personal opinions." The AAAS statement does not meet these criteria for several reasons. First, it is an opinion piece rather than a peer-reviewed article. Second, the source undermines its credibility by including a claim that is not true. Specifically, it argues that "...the World Health Organization...has come to the...conclusion [that] 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." We know, from extensive discussion in a thread above, that the WHO has not come to that conclusion. Third, the AAAS citation cannot necessarily be considered to be third-party. Whether the source is third-party is not clear because we do not know that the members of the AAAS board have no conflicts of interest. GrayDuck156 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support While I would prefer to use a quote from one of the sources rather than hammering out language intra-WP, I don't find a substantial reason to reject the current lanaguage. I would certainly entertain alternative proposaled language that the community could consider. Lfstevens (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you point to wording in any of the articles that is equivalent to the first sentence? The only one that comes close, as far as I can see, is the AAAS statement. However, please see my comment above regarding the phrases "conventional plant improvement techniques" and "conventional food." GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Some revisions are desirable. The overall thrust of the statement, and the provision of many source citations, are accurate. However, sources like the AAAS statement attests to the safety of currently marketed GM food based on regulation of GM food, in particular, the requirement that added proteins be shown to be non-toxic and non-allergenic. This is a crucial dependency. There is no law of nature that would stop me from taking any toxin from any species (subject to compatibility of glycosylation and other processing) and putting it into a GM plant. It would be difficult, yes, and obviously it wouldn't pay outside of some very specialized and hopefully hypothetical marketplace, but in scientific terms, it is not impossible. For a realistic example, see [6]. More generally see pharming (genetics); the accidental diversion or contamination of crops isn't that far-fetched a scenario. To address this, 1) In front of "In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated..." I would append "Noting United States regulations that require any added proteins be proven neither toxic nor allergenic, ..." 2) I'd prefer to add "the" in front of "currently marketed" to emphasize that a specific range of foods is addressed 3) considerable work could be done to make the focus of this article less U.S.-centric regarding toxicity - we should have sources in other paragraphs to address the question of whether anyone, anywhere on Earth is growing untested, potentially toxic GM foods and bringing them to markets. Wnt (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

all that stuff, is not about the subject sentence. (this is one of reasons why we get objections - people treat it, as though it says something it doesn't.) . pharming crops are not GM food. and the statement is not about any theoretical food, it is about currently marketed food. the limitation about US violates GLOBAL and is not accurate, as regulators around the world look at the same basic things. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate that the statement you are referring to is not a sweeping claim of consensus from the AAAS. It was written by the AAAS Board of Directors and, considering that a group of scientists formally issued a letter of disagreement on a separate issue with the Board's statement, I see no reason to interpret the rest of the Board's letter as scientific evidence. The letter is neither a scientific literature review, nor a statement of official policy from the AAAS. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The AAAS Board are speaking for the AAAS. We correctly represent this as a corporate statement. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

My point in noting the letter of disagreement to that AAAS statement is to point out that a letter from a Board of Directors does not equate to agreement from the members of that society, This letter serves to prove what the board thinks, and nothing more. There was also a clear conflict of interest from the board, which published the letter shortly before a vote on a GM labeling bill in California. The chair of the board is Nina Federoff, previously a board member with the Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company.66.169.76.198 (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support: References 2, 4 and 7 are the strongest; the others could be folded into 8 as "other sources". Addition of watering-down text such as "currently marketed" is not NPOV. It suggests that the intuition of those who oppose GM foods is correct, and that evidence to support them must be out there somewhere. Roches (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Roches: Please note that reference 7 is not listed anywhere in the article. Could you please point to the sentences in the other two sources that you think are equivalent to any of the sentences in the article? GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@GrayDuck156: I meant the references as numbered in the passage above; since it's the survey section I decided not to elaborate. I meant the one by the European Union, doi:10.2777/97784, the one by the American Medical Association and the one by the World Health Organization. Roches (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Roches: Reference 7 is to the FAO source, not the WHO. In any event, please be specific about which sentences in those three sources actually state that "[t]here is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." I have looked at all three sources and cannot find any support for that claim in any of those three sources. GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I have laid out my argument against this claim, and the problems with those sources which I felt like reviewing, in the discussion. You can find my most extensive comment by searching for "In regards to your comment that this article is about actual GM food, Jytdog," 66.169.76.198 (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia reflects the world as it is, not as some people wish or fear it to be. I cannot find a single documented incident of provable harm in over three decades of routine use of GMOs, or any reputable scientific body that identifies any proven harm. I also find no evidence of any objectively quantifiable shift in scientific opinion away from safety since the last RfC. Opposition to golden rice has also exposed major flaws in the arguments of anti-GMO activists, showing that many of the sources which claimed to be based on science are, in fact, founded on irrational reaction to the idea of GMOs - which is one of the major factors that persuaded me to re-evaluate my own views. If anything the matter is clearer now than it was then and the nature of dissenting opinion more clearly identified as philosophical rather than scientific. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

As I point out further down in the discussion, the ongoing issue regarding patent-blocking of health studies on GM foods-- an issue that the United Nations Environment Programme also comments on in their International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics-- explains the disconcerting lack of overall health studies on this issue, as well as, more specifically, the lack of rigorous studies showing the potential for adverse effects. This lack of study has been repeatedly quantified by Domingo and has been noted by the United Nations Environment Programme and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, among others. These two agencies also state that there is no scientific consensus on whether GM foods are as safe as conventional foods. I have already linked these sources several times in this discussion, and as of yet have received no response from folks in support of the RfC claim.

I'd also like to point out that, despite this lack of study on health issues related to GM food, your failure to find "a single documented incident of provable harm in over three decades of routine use of GMOs" is questionable. These studies are not hard to find. Studies by Séralini and Carmen are easy reference points. These studies have been subjected to fierce rebuke but, as Séralini points out in a published letter in the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal, unscientific double standards have been applied to research that finds adverse health effects of GM food. If you question this letter, I invite you to review the Zhang and Hammond studies called into question by the letter, and compare their review process to that applied to the Séralini study. Further evidence suggesting that currently marketed GM food may cause adverse health impacts can be viewed here, and a study on the impact of financial conflicts of interest on GM food health studies can be found here. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should acknowledge plausible fears. If we write an article about some kind of space vehicle, it is not sufficient to say "it was built by the best engineers, and it has never crashed." No, we should explore what would happen if it did crash, what Mission Control does to keep its path mostly over uninhabited area, abort procedures for the astronauts, etc. This is actually true even if the vehicle was retired 20 years ago and we know it never crashed.

We do. It's in the controversies article. Lfstevens (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: I don't think it is in any way "irrational" to not trust the judgment of the people who make the GMOs, or the regulators. It is possible that someone will get the bright idea to make sunflower oil more like fish oil and manipulate the crop to produce unnatural lipids that could turn out, after years of study, to be as bad as trans fats. It is possible that someone will manipulate a potato with the best of intentions and inadvertently increase the production of cardiac glycosides in the tubers. So far, as you say, nothing like this has happened, but the fear is not irrational. It would be a terrible disgrace if the sons of Athena were as careless with her power as Phaeton - the rational people of the world need to reason about things that have not yet happened yet. Wnt (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, but it doesn't make sense to distrust the makers of GMOs more than we distrust those who make other things that we urgently depend on. Lfstevens (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

In this case the space vehicle was built by the best engineers and has been in daily use for over three decades with billions of "journeys" every year and it's never crashed. At some point the residual doubt is too small to worry about. I am struggling to think of a single recent new technology which comes out anywhere near as safe. There are philosophical arguments against GMOs, but the safety arguments are unsupported by any hard evidence, as far as I can see, and many of the arguments against us saying GMOs are safe to eat, require rather blatant WP:SYN. Seralini, in particular, is not a credible source. The way he went about publishing his paper, and republishing after retraction, raises serious doubts about his objectivity - in fact this looks like yet another example of trying to provide sciencey-looking support for a philosophical objection, by any means possible. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with your conclusion, we don't really care what individuals think. We're trying to tease out whether a consensus exists and what it says. (The article already takes a position on this.) Lfstevens (talk)

• • @JzG: : "I cannot find a single documented incident of provable harm in over three decades of routine use of GMOs, or any reputable scientific body that identifies any proven harm. I also find no evidence of any objectively quantifiable shift in scientific opinion away from safety since the last RfC." How does these sentences pertain to whether any of the existing sources support any of the existing claims? GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support: The reliable sources are quite unanimous on this issue, and we are editors of a free, online encyclopedia that is meant to reflect what the reliable sources say. I agree with the suggestion in previous survey replies that finding some of the latest secondary sources to back up this statement would be especially helpful to editors who are new to Wikipedia and new to identifying reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @WeijiBaikeBianji: Could you please identify the "reliable sources" to which you are referring and how you concluded that they are reliable? Which sentences in those sources, in your belief, are equivalent to the claim that "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food."? GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose My problem is primarily with sourcing: 18 or so sources are presented to support a conclusion - "broad scientific consensus" - that is synthesis not summary unless taken from a solid source. That source may be present amongst the 18, but at least narrow it down to two or three according to Wikipedia conventions and common sense (one editor has voted for 2, 4 and 7). Jytdog's instruction that the sources are arranged in descending order of importance, and readers should start at the beginning and read until satisfied is bizarre, and sounds basically like Google. --Tsavage (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

the question is - is the content supported by the sources. that does not appear to answer the question, but to be dealing with something else. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC))

@Jytdog: That is what I answered, and to restate: No, in current form with 18 or so cited sources, the overall citation does not support the statement "broad scientific consensus," by failing to provide the reasonably accessible verifiability expected of a Wikipedia article. This idea of open-ended verification, with a potentially infinite number of sources to choose from (18 is well on the way to infinity IMO) is not functional. Read statement > read sourcing. If the sources require hours of reading, that does not work, I want to read exactly what the encyclopedia based the statement on, not just on some of it. If the sources all say the same thing, most are redundant and can be removed; if they do not, the conclusion is synthesis. If the mountain of available evidence adds up to what can be characterized as "broad consensus," it should be no trouble at all to find a couple of sources to say that, so just include those. Why should I support a malformed piece of content, where verifiability is totally compromised by 18 citations? I don't. --Tsavage (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: I am not suggesting (or hoping) that we suppress or water down or otherwise reduce or conceal the reality of what review studies and medical and scientific organizations have said, individually and collectively, just that a handy sweeping statement like "broad scientific consensus" is powerful in its ability to obscure and inhibit critical thinking as catchphrases tend to be, and it should not be deployed without concrete sourcing. There are many other strong ways to represent the same information, such as with quotes, which are easily verifiable - we should source "broad consensus" properly, or seek alternative wording. --Tsavage (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are asking people to iVote on what is a clear violation of our PAGs. In case you don't understand what this means, please read:

• Via WP:SYNTH Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Not only have you failed to provide a source supporting your statement, but the conclusion you've reached from your sources is in direct contradiction to other RS is being ignored. Those sources state that the science on GMO safety is inconclusive.

• Via Hilbeck et al. Environmental Sciences Europe (2015) The Cartagena Protocol and Codex share a precautionary approach to GM crops and foods, in that they agree that genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required before GM organisms are used in food or released into the environment. These agreements would never have been negotiated, and the implementation processes elaborating how such safety assessments should be conducted would not currently be happening, without widespread international recognition of the risks posed by GM crops and foods and the unresolved state of existing scientific understanding. petrarchan47คุก 18:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

we clearly disagree on how to interpret policy. and the source you choose is by an advocacy group printed in a predatory journal, per predatory publishers; not something to give much WEIGHT to. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC) (strike incorrect statement Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC))

Environmental Sciences Europe is not listed on the source you cite. I think you must be confusing it with European Environmental Sciences and Ecology Journal, which is on that list, but is not the journal we are discussing. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose The use of "broad scientific consensus" is not expressly stated in the sources. Since it cant be found it is not verifiable and likely OR by synthesis. Per WP:OR "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Since it is not stated in the sources, it is OR. AlbinoFerret 18:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Source and location for the claim were provided, strike oppose. AlbinoFerret 01:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose We do not determine whether scientific consensus exists by examining all the papers written, but should rely on review articles. Domingo & Bordonaba 2011 says no consensus exists.[7] Domingo had written other review studies in 2000 and 2006 which made similar conclusions and one is cited in the UN's International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development 2009, Global Report, p. 394, which concludes no consensus exists.[8] The UN report in turn is relied on in "Understanding GMO" on the David Suzuki Foundation website.[9] While these sources could all be wrong, we would need a source that says so. Domingo's study has 116 cites on Google scholar,[10] so it is not as if it is obscure. TFD (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

as mentioned below, Domingo is a "significant minority" in my view. scientific consensus doesn't mean unanimity. similar to global warming. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

While one expects to find differences of opinion in primary studies, review studies are supposed to be an objective reporting of the existing literature, and are the sources considered most reliable in MEDRS. If it indeed represents a minority view, it should not have been published or should be retracted. At least, it should have attracted condemnation in the literature. And we should have another review study that comes to another conclusion. TFD (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue here TfD is that the issue is controversial. As I said, Domingo is a credible minority. You can't just pick a review and say "that one" - you have to read a lot of reliable secondary sources and understand the story. This is the essence of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Domingo's views are not shared by the consensus - this is clear as day when you read the literature. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The main source that backs up the current claim is the AAAS statement. The WHO citation remains very unpopular. I have reviewed the "Report 2" citation below and found that it does not claim there is a scientific consensus on the issue. The "10 Decades of EU Research" paper focuses on many GMO issues, and the citations for the health section were not a strong point. I have already stated my opposition to the AAAS statement. But, if we're to take the AAAS statement as unbiased, I think the "No Consensus" letter should also be taken as unbiased.

You don't have to claim bias to attempt to put a set of claims in perspective. Even in Domingo, a clear majority of studies find "no effect". Lfstevens (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Finally, there are credible sources that explicitly state that there is no scientific consensus, including the UN assessment cited in this discussion and the AND report. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This point is so contentious that I'm beginning to think that it warrants an article of its own. "Controversies" covers many topics beyond the state of the scientific consensus. Lfstevens (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Genetic modification is a particularly well-studied topic and the conclusions that it is both safe and not unhealthy are fairly uncontroverseial within the communities who study these topics. The sources cited demonstrate this. Alternative sources that are being offered to counter this point are either to less highly-regarded journals, discredited scientists, or in the context of politics rather than science. As WP:CBALL seems to be a reasonable thing upon which to hang our hat, it seems reasonable that we tell the reader simply that GM food is regarded scientifically as safe and not unhealthy. Calls for more transparent and independent testing of GM foods by, for example, UCS, can find their way into the article, but do not seem relevant for the question being posed in this RfC. jps (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This is another example of an editor who has allowed his belief in the safety of GMO food to cloud his judgment regarding whether the article's existing sources support the existing content. His first sentence casts doubt about his conclusion because it adds opinion that should not be needed if the existing citations adequately support the content. [11]: "...[T]he talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic." GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose but mainly on an (I think important) issue of pedantry. In addition to souring problems I think that the wording sequence is leading and misrepresentatively positive. A better wording sequence, I think, would be, "A broad scientific consensus holds that GM food, as currently marketed, poses no greater risk than conventional food." I think that an important distinction needs to clearly presented between the present and any potential future. I think that there are two main issues here. 1. while science is, by "nature", arguably the purest of all things, scientists can be extraordinarily corrupt. Simple reference to the history of smoking confirms this. 2. The world population is increasing at a far greater rate than improvements in food production can possibly match. Highly populated countries like the UK and Japan import food from countries that people are leaving. These people typically then want to move to already overcrowded countries and the food markets are placed under ever greater pressures. Who is to say, in such a context, which compromises scientists may opt for in potentially well intentioned pursuit of increased yields? We must also use citations that back the contents being presented. GregKaye 14:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per TFD. It is not Wikipedia's job to determine if a scientific consensus exists by examining the research and coming to a sage conclusion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

the content is directly supported by the sources. please see below. strange. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Not strange at all, nor especially complicated. We have to rely upon review articles that assess the literature. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support even as amended by Jytdog. The sources listed at the top of this RfC clearly show scientific consensus and is very much in line with WP:RS/AC and represent the sources accurately per WP:WEIGHT and is not original research. I recently went through many of those sources and specifically pulled out the piece of content that supports the statement this conversation here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

With the sources clearly stating there is consensus, I wanted to summarize a few issues that are largely invalid after reading over this conversation too in my !vote. There are some common misunderstandings about how scientific discourse works in this discussion, so the closer should be wary from a weight perspective about arguments some are making:

1. Some have taken issue with the term "broad" in the scientific consensus statement. Scientific consensus is by definition broad agreement by scientists on a topic. Including broad may be redundant and not necessarily needed in the text, but it does drive home the point for readers who aren't entirely familiar with what academic consensus means. Including broad in this context would not be original research as it is not changing the meaning of what the other sources describe.
2. Some have pointed to a small number of sources saying there is no consensus. A consensus statement cannot be invalidated by a single source or even a handful presented. What we need are the major organizations that have said there is a consensus to show that the evidence has changed. Academic consensus is not unanimity because you can still get publications pushing WP:FRINGE views or novel ideas that don't have acceptance yet. What matters is overall agreement, and that's what the sources currently show when the sources are weighed against each other.
3. WP:MEDDATE has been brought up where sources older than 5 years are not preferred (but not saying not allowed). In topics that are changing quickly in medicine that are constantly being updated, we tend to red flag older sources to almost require newer ones. This topic is different because once scientific is consensus is achieved, most scientists move on to other topics rather than republishing the same statement every five years. In this case, we're likely to see older sources with less recent mentions because of exactly that. If the sources themselves are no longer valid because they have dated claims due to consensus changing, there will be a plethora of strong sources stating they've changed to no consensus or stating the specific problems. There's been plenty of discussion in the discussion section below, so if anyone wants to continue addressing anything I mentioned, best to do it there rather than in the survey section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• • One problem I have with your list, @Kingofaces43:, is that many of the sources in your list are not mentioned in the actual article. You seem to be pulling that list from a completely different article than the one we are discussing. You also seem to be a bit sloppy in your analysis. For example, the AAAS citation contrasts GMO food with "conventional plant breeding techniques" rather than "conventional food." Some readers might not consider some food derived from "conventional plant breeding techniques," as that term is used by the AAAS, to be, itself, conventional. For example, Dr. William Davis argues that dwarf wheat, which was created from non-GMO plant breeding techniques, is harmful. The AAAS seems to be comparing GMO food to foods like dwarf wheat, not to un-engineered, unprocessed foods that have been found in nature in its original form. The sentence from your second listed citation has a similar flaw. Some of your other quotations from the sources fail to distinguish between establishing "no greater risk to human health than conventional food" and lesser claims, like no risks being currently identified. Yet another problem I have with your list is that your do not even begin to address issues of citation reliability. For example, the AAAS statement is an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed academic journal. GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I took a close look at the third source. (Note that it is cited in the body but not in the opening of the article.) The source appears to be a research paper rather than experimental research, so it is only as valuable as its sources. Its sources, besides being very old or difficult to find online, appear to only support the claim that "...the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health..." rather than the much bolder claim that "[t]here is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." Again, "conventional food" and "food from conventional breeding" are not necessarily equivalent, and are arguably mutually exclusive. GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The sentence you pulled from the four source is simply not equivalent to the claim that "[t]here is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." It says nothing about any consensus. Furthermore, the failure to identify "overt consequences on human health" from Google and PubMed searches hardly proves that GMO crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food. GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I was asked to comment, but I have no involvement in this issue and can't really give an opinion. What seems clear is that the sources could be presented better. No quote is given from the WHO, either in the paragraph or footnote, and its position doesn't really support the paragraph. Also, the quote from the FAO has left out the part where they express doubt. So those quotes should be added to the footnote (if the others are going to remain) and the paragraph tweaked accordingly. Part of the WHO's statement could be included in the paragraph as it's more nuanced and represents something other than the US/UK view. The WHO says:

  Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

  "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods." [12]

  The FAO says (after the paragraph already quoted):

  "The lack of evidence of negative effects, however, does not mean that new transgenic foods are without risk (ICSU, GM Science Review Panel). Scientists acknowledge that not enough is known about the long-term effects of transgenic (and most traditional) foods. It will be difficult to detect long-term effects because of many confounding factors such as the underlying genetic variability in foods and problems in assessing the impacts of whole foods. ..." [13]

  Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

currently marketed food has been assessed on a case by case basis. that is the point of specifying "currently marketed" instead of mentioning some vague notion of all possible GM food, of which many very harmful kinds can be imagined. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the current paragraph focuses on parts of sources that offer certainty and not on parts that offer nuance. And the footnote quotes other sources but not the WHO, and not the FAO paragraph that introduces doubt. Both issues should be fixed. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added (to the footnote) the WHO quote, the second para of the FAO, and a journal quote that directly supports the sentence. [14] Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per general issues with the wording of the part of the lead/info in question. One of the sources states, "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." None of the other sources use broad in a way similar to how this article does. We say "[GM Foods] poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food", which isn't the same thing as being "safe to eat". Since we are using the term "broad scientific consensus", all the sources need to agree explicitly on any statement we make. Even if they do, combining the sources and making a blanket statement like that is explicitly original research, unless they all specifically state what we write here. That is a non-issue really though, because if we have a source that says "There is broad scientific consensus for" whatever, then we can source and state it (assuming it is reliable). We can't however, piece what we perceive the sources to say together, and make a statement. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We do have a source which uses the phrase "broad scientific consensus". And another source which states:

Moreover, the AAAS Board said, 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.”"

The problem is that editors like to pretend these sources aren't reliable, so more sources are brought in to support them, but then other editors state that there are so many sources that it must be synth. We do have clear statements of there being a consensus, what we don't have is unanimity which is allowing editors to try and argue that no consensus exists.TypingAway (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I quoted the first source you mention, above. My issue is that we should either quote the sources, or say something equivalent. What we currently have is not stated universally by the sources used to back it up. I would have no issue with quoting the American Association for the Advancement of Science's statement (your second source), and just using that source. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, two things. First, the amended statement should meet the concern you stated in your original "oppose", correct? Also, some of the sources are the direct support, and others are examples of institutions within the consensus (like the AMA, which is cited by the AAAS) Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• In general, I support the statement, as an accurate description of the scientific analysis of GM foods, and per the apparent lack of changes since 2013 that would warrant a re-evaluation. The sources are the same, and are of the highest possible level of reliability we can reach for scientific statements. Dissenters still exist and are published, which isn't surprising, but there isn't any indication that they have weight comparable to the weight of the sources already being cited.

I would note that there are several objections based on SYNTH or V which focus on minor issues that aren't relevant to the fundamental statement the sentence is making. Any objection that the word "broad" is SYNTH can be easily addressed by removing the word "broad," and the meaning of the sentence will remain the same. The objections that "consensus" isn't verified were also addressed last time, and (although it's a straightforward reading of the cited sources) that can likewise be addressed by changing it to a simple statement of fact, e.g. "[Eating] food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk..."

None of that is to say that the statement can't be improved on. For example, I would support a clarification that the statement refers specifically to consumption of GM foods. This has always been assumed, but I don't think there's any problem in spelling it out, as long as the wording doesn't carry implications about whether other effects on human health either exist or not. Likewise, I would see no problem with discussing the possible risks of future GM foods in the lead, as long as weight can be established and it's clear which parts of it are speculative. Sunrise (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comment, it is one of the few that reasonably addresses in detail the LANGUAGE and editorial context. A good deal of the discussion here, while interesting and critical as far as accuracy, seems to largely ignore the equally important aspect of presentation to the general reader. We shouldn't be arguing over a particular phrase like "broad scientific consensus," instead, continually considering the best choices in transparently supported wording, following where the sources lead. --Tsavage (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

To expand and add more analysis to my previous comment, it's perhaps ironic that the effect of focusing on the phrase "broad scientific consensus," if successful in removing it, will presumably be to leave behind only the direct statements of fact. We could easily replace the sentence with things like "no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature" (AMA) and "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies" (EU) and similar statements. The term "scientific consensus" implies the existence of dissent, while straightforward factual statements do not.

Also, the list of possible sources continues with those that aren't cited in the article. Putting aside the older statements from the NAS and Royal Society, we could also start taking statements from other well-known scientific organizations (those that are "merely" internationally prominent, rather than the most prestigious in the world!), e.g. [15] [16] [17], which all contain statements along the same lines. And this is only the list of formal positions of major scientific organizations, not the list of review articles, but those exist too and some are cited in the article. Those are relatively lower quality - specifically, it's the same level of evidence as Domingo - but overall, the small handful of sources disputing this really doesn't compare. It's reasonable to discuss nuances and caveats, but I think the use of "scientific consensus" is itself a more than reasonable compromise. Sunrise (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sunrise: My objection has grown from a questioning of 18 or so citations for one statement, to opposition of a monolithic construction like "broad scientific consensus" used in this context, especially when there is a clear alternative available. As it is, that statement is splashed across several GMO articles, and presents a kind of wall, an editorial ultimatum: "Sure, you can wade through (up to 18) sources, or just take our word that the experts agree." In a complicated, controversial current topic like this, saying "just about every scientist agrees," doesn't seem transparent enough. I think many editors are looking at it through too literal a lens, and not trying to read the content as an actual reader would (which is critically important).

(And yes, there are "other articles" where perhaps more detail is available, but THIS is the article people are reading. and a sufficient amount of standalone information should be present here.)

In this one case, the AAAS statement seems to me fine as an in-text attributed quote (there are arguments that it is a politcal statement, meant to support anti-GMO labeling efforts, and one protested by some of the AAAS own membership, but that aside for now, as it is verifiable from a generally reilable source): "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." This gets the point across just as clearly as "broad scientific consensus," with more information, and does not put Wikipedia in the tricky position of walking the WP:RS/AC line. Adding a reasonably succinct follow-up on substantial equivalence should overall provide accessible, readable information on the general evidence-based position, more so than a simple blanket statement.

Your suggestion that we may be worse off without BSC is only if some editors then chose to blast the article with a dozen quotes, in the same way 18 citations are used (and we've seen that elsewhere). This is simply unnecessary, and bad editing, and bad form if used as a tactic. Our own article on scientific consensus notes: "In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy." In controversial topics, BSC is not necessarily a neutral term, and should be regarded with care. For my part, there is no desire to obscure results, instead to present them to a general reader in an understandable way, not as a take-it-or-leave it pronouncement. There is other, equally clear language available, BSC is not the only option. --Tsavage (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely not the only option, and it's reasonable to discuss others. That said, I would just note that using attribution for formal statements from organizations of this caliber, except when the statements or organizations are themselves of interest, shades into false balance and WP:GEVAL violation. For the purposes of the general reader, it is a take-it-or-leave-it pronouncement, representing the greatest extent of scientific knowledge at the time the statement was written. In terms of the sourcing of scientific facts, it's generally only contestable by an opposing statement from another scientific body of similar or higher standing - of which there are, off-hand, maybe half a dozen in the whole world. (With reasonable caveats; common sense applies, of course.) The AMA, NAS, and Royal Society are also on that list. Sunrise (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support This is, in my opinion, the scientific consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Roches following advice given by Roches. Flying Jazz (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There are several global scientific groups which have expressed that GMO food might not be safe, so there is no consensus. Further, criticism has been made on pro-GMO food safety research which equates it with 1960's tobacco science and that calls into question many of the sources currently in use on this page to support a statement of consensus. LesVegas (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

would you please name major medical or scientific bodies that have said that currently marketed food from GMOs might not be safe? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility is one such org, as is the Royal Society of Canada, and even the American Medical Association’s Council on Science and Public Health. There are also more, but I think that should suffice to suggest that there really is no consensus. LesVegas (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

ENSSR is not a major medical scientific/scientific body; it is an advocacy group. And AMA is a source cited here supporting the consensus statement. With regard to the Royal Society of Canada, they have made no statement on GM food that I can find. There was an expert panel they convened that issued a report away back in 2001 that was widely criticized for taking a fringe-y view on transgenic plants. Health Canada actually stands solidly in the mainstream scientific consensus, per this page. As I asked originally, what major medical/scientific bodies have said that currently marketed food from GMOs is not safe? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"ENSSR is an advocacy group" - without any supporting reference, this appears to be simply an opinion, rendering it meaningless at best. Please provide proof for this claim. petrarchan47คุก 21:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm from their website: "The purpose of ENSSER is: the advancement of science and research for the protection of the environment, biological diversity and human health against negative impacts of new technologies and their products. ..." Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Appreciated (sorry to frustrate you).

• So you are saying that ENSSER is not acceptable for this article? You would be simultaneously claiming that any sources interested in the advancement of GM foods and technology would be unacceptable. If this is your take, a next step would be to remove such sources from your "consensus" list.
• In a similar vein, what is your take on MEDRS as it pertains to MEDDATE? I have seen you remove or reject sources on the claim that MEDRS disallows sources older than 5 years. However in the discussion below, You are supporting 12 year old sources as MEDRS-compliant. Please clarify what the grey area is, exactly, so that we are on the same page. petrarchan47คุก 23:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

unlike you, i have never proposed partisan sources. I have not proposed PMID 25972882 nor PMID 24579994 (very recent reviews in the peer reviewed literature by Monsanto scientists) nor anything by Jon Entine nor actual industry propaganda like this. On the MEDDATE thing, as i wrote below, the scientific consensus on the relative safety of currently marketed GM food is not hot science. If you understood the science, you would know that there is no reason to even think there would be food safety issues - that is as true today as it was ten years ago. But hey - if you know of any plausible mechanism of toxicity, I am all ears. Really. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure you have never proposed partisan sources, though I acknowledge that is your claim. From a quick glance, I note that 3rd reference in this article comes from the FDA's "Q&A" on GMOs. The FDA is run by Monsanto's ex VP and former chief lobbyist, and cannot be considered anything but partisan. The Q&A reads like something one would expect from a former Monsanto lobbyist. In the list of citations above, there is apparently a conflict of interest with regard to the AAAS' board's statement. And finally, even though I am not a scientist as you and King continue to point out (in violation of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR), I wonder why you refuse to acknowledge that the WHO says it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. You may have chosen only impartial sources, I haven't examined them in depth yet, but you are showing partiality by cherry picking quotations from them. Luckily it doesn't take a scientist to recognize POV. petrarchan47คุก 08:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

the content doesn't talk about "all GM foods", and i am not talking about that either. and since 2009 the FDA has been run by Margaret Hamburg who is a freaking hero and never worked for Monsanto, and as of very recently, the FDA is being run by Stephen Ostroff who also never worked for Monsanto. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The ENSSER doesn't do research, their budget is less than $50,000, they don't even have a Wikipedia page. The ENSSER is just a couple of people who got together and decided to call themselves the "European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility" and partake in some political activism.TypingAway (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The ENSSER isn't claiming to have done research, they simply published the review from a body of 300 PHDs, half of whom identified as pro-GMO. Their conclusion doesn't represent activism, which implies POV, but rather they state that danger from GM foods cannot be proven. The part those who support te claim of safety consensus are simply opposed to the other part of their findings, which is that safety also cannot be proven yet. Your opinion of the publisher of the paper is quite irrelevant, one needs to find the contents of the paper faulty to claim the review carries no WEIGHT. petrarchan47คุก 02:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I was specifically responding to the claim that they are a "major scientific body", and was not even aware of their specific statement. As far as their statement is concerned it holds little more weight than this petition signed by over 2,300 engineering and architectural professionals asking for an investigation into whether 9/11 was an inside job. A random collection of people with phDs? Engineers, entomologists, juris doctorates, physicists, geophysists, people whose credentials include no additional information beyond "phD"? The very fact that they feel the need to create a petition to argue that there is no scientific consensus only reaffirms their own minority status.TypingAway (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are correct that the AMA took some positive stances on GMO's, but that is a binary outlook at best. The AMA-ASSN stated a small potential for adverse events exists, due mainly to horizontal gene transfer, allergenicity, and toxicity. That is similar to statements by the National Academy of Sciences, for instance, that genetic modification carries the potential to result in unintended changes in the composition of the food. Yet these organizations are used on this article as though they give wholehearted support for genetic modification. And yes, there's plenty of organizations that are skeptical. Yes, Health Canada had positive findings, but again, the Royal Society of Canada stated that GM foods could cause "a range of collateral changes in expression of other genes, changes in the pattern of proteins produced and/or changes in metabolic activities". You also have the British Medical Association stating, “Many unanswered questions remain, particularly with regard to the potential long-term impact of GM foods on human health and on the environment." As for the ENSSER, I'm not sure a large body of scientists forming an independent group should necessarily be labeled an advocacy group. It's not the same as the Institute for Responsible Technology, which I think is just Jeffrey Smith. We are talking about a group of several hundred scientists and I think that weighs. But certainly the others do, too. And when you really examine many of the "pro" statements you find they're not as pro as you think, that often there are reservations and they leave also leave the door open for unknown health problems that may occur. I want to reemphasize that consensus statements cannot glance over major orgs like these and that we have to express organizations' whole statements. Despite your excellent arguments, I'm still not convinced otherwise and I'm still very much *Opposed to the measure. LesVegas (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

argh. Royal Society of Canada has said nothing about GMOs. a committee they gathered did. And even the recent AMA committee said "Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature." The risk they talk about is for theoretical GM foods. And the BMA says "In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionallfoodsy derived ." There is a scientific consensus on the relative safety of currently marketed GM food. Nobody says it is perfectly safe. The freakshow that Jeffrey Smith, ENSSR, and Seralini put on is way way outside the consensus. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jytdog, but you haven't convinced me that the ENSSER are a freak show group of fringe thinkers. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes, Wikipedia describes disputes. A group of scientists' voices should not be silenced by a Wikipedia that steamrolls over their tongues on their way to a fairytale land of establishment consensus that doesn't truly exist anyway. It wasn't a committee that the Royal Society of Canada gathered. It was an expert panel on the future of food biotechnology which was prepared by the Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada. And I know the AMA and others have taken a strong pro-GMO safety stance, and I want you to know I'm not denying that. But you should be aware that you're denying their caveats and concerns, small though they are, in an attempt to create a binary reality of "safe vs unsafe" on this page which doesn't exist in reality. And I'm not arguing that Jeffrey Smith should be included in a discussion on scientific consensus, because he's an activist and not a scientist. I only brought him up to contrast his institute with ENSSER, and because you were trying to characterize the ENSSER with his org, and it's not that at all. LesVegas (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

yep it is clear you are committed. and the statement isn't binary or absolute, it is relative. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The content is verifiable per reliable sources and satisfies the required neutral point of view given the weight of the sources provided. For example, "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", AAAS, 2012.— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @ArtifexMayhem: How did you conclude that an opinion piece on a web site is a "reliable source"? How did you conclude that "foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques" is equivalent to "conventional food"? If this source is so strong and you do not see fit to comment on the other sources, why not support their removal? GrayDuck156 (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The "broad scientific consensus" line is only expressly supported by one of the sources used as references. The remaining are used to back up that one source by synthesis. That is OR and since WP:OR is one of the five pillars it can not be allowed to remain. At most this RFC will do is create a local consensus that cant override a core policy. If the sources are removed, I would support the RFC. AlbinoFerret 19:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, the sourcing actually could support even stronger wording, but the existing carefully-qualified statement is a good compromise. Zad68 20:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem, as Sarah SV points out, is that this exact same sourcing also supports a statement which includes nuance and doubt, making a sweeping safety claim unsupported. At WP we should be summarizing all reliable sources on the matter, instead of cherry-picking sources and content from within them whilst ignoring anything that doesn't fit a certain (pro-GMO) POV (see WP:ASSERT). petrarchan47คุก 20:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 SV's comments have been covered by others already. Be careful that you're commenting on the actual article content here, the statement isn't that "GM foods are perfectly safe" or even that "GM foods that are currently marketed are perfectly safe" but rather the statement is qualified to currently marketed foods and makes only a comparative statement of safety as compared to non-GM foods. This is supported by the sourcing provided. Zad68 21:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Zad68 The actual article content under discussion is an example of SYNTH and OR (by way of "summarizing" one editor's choice of references, not all of them MEDRS, even though the subject is human health). Tsavage elucidates the SYNTH issue here. This RfC asks us to iVote not on whether the sentence summarizes all the RS available, but whether it summarizes only the chosen sources and content within them. This ignores issues of NPOV, and frankly, truth. Wikipedia has been called out by a large group of independent scientists for misrepresenting facts by printing this very statement. It seems we are to believe that a few anonymous WP editors should be trusted with properly and neutrally summarizing GM science, and ignore all evidence to the contrary. petrarchan47คุก 03:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

petrarchan47 be careful about making arguments regarding article content based on what you personally might perceive as "truth", we don't base article content on the personal views of Wikipedia editors, and (as it should be obvious) not everyone agrees with each other on what the truth might be, which is why we all need to stick to high-quality, authoritative sources.

The problems with using a statement by an ad-hoc advocacy group like the ENSSER have been pointed out repeatedly to you already, and it's disappointing you are still pointing to it as if it were on par with the other sources.

Regarding a possible SYNTH issue, honestly the AAAS or the WHO statements individually could be used to support "Currently-marketed GM foods are just as safe as conventionally-improved foods" without the further qualfication about "broad scientific consensus" (this is what I meant by saying that a stronger statement could be made), and only one source is really needed. But it's become apparent over time our readers demand more support for this statement so that's why so many more sources have been added. Besides, the AAAS statement itself mentions the WHO, the AMA and the NAS explicitly in their statement so I don't see how it's a problem if we're using the AAAS as a secondary source summarizing statements from those organization as primary sources to provide links to those statements as a convenience to reader. Zad68 01:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It has been stated by one or two editors that the ENSSER is a biased source, however I have not been provided any substantiating evidence of that, it is only an opinion. Of the 300 scientists, doctors and PHDs involved in the paper, half of them were pro-GMO, and the paper reflected the truly neutral nature of the body of scientists - they said there is no consensus that GM foods are either safe or dangerous. (You have no idea what I perceive as truth so leave personal comments out, please.)

Gray Duck said it well, so I'm going to partially repeat their recent post - some very important facts are being ignored:

"According to WP:RS/AC, "[t]he statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. ...[a]ny statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." None of the sources directly state that such a consensus exists as stated in the article. The only one that comes close is the AAAS citation. However, the AAAS opinion piece has two problems. First, it uses the phrase "conventional plant improvement techniques" rather than "conventional food." That difference is problematic because "conventional food" arguably does not include any genetically engineered food at all whereas "conventional plant improvement techniques" arguably do include plants that are genetically engineered without genetically-modified organisms. At least one author, Dr. William Davis, argues that some non-GMO genetic engineering has been very harmful. The other problem with the AAAS source is that it is not a reliable source. According to WP:RELIABLE, "[a]rticles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources... Questionable sources are those...which rely heavily on...personal opinions." The AAAS statement does not meet these criteria for several reasons. First, it is an opinion piece rather than a peer-reviewed article. Second, the source undermines its credibility by including a claim that is not true. Specifically, it argues that "...the World Health Organization...has come to the...conclusion [that] 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." We know, from extensive discussion in a thread above, that the WHO has not come to that conclusion. Third, the AAAS citation cannot necessarily be considered to be third-party. Whether the source is third-party is not clear because we do not know that the members of the AAAS board have no conflicts of interest." petrarchan47คุก 03:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note - This RFC is a bit backward. The typical RFC suggests a change to the existing article; if there is consensus supporting the change, it happens, otherwise the article remains at status quo ante. This RFC is asking for support of the status quo ante. I'm not exactly sure what is supposed to happen if the result is "No consensus"? Zad68 21:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Just prior to this RfC, attention was on the previous thread, where sourcing was being discussed. The best I can make out, this RfC is an attempt to validate the large number of sources en masse. If the citations are scrutinized and there is no adequate sourcing, then the statement cannot stand. If there is adequate sourcing, then we are left with an easily verifiable statement. --Tsavage (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

i actually did it this way on purpose. doing it the standard way (so that "no consensus" would support the status quo) would have been kind of gaming the system in my view. The consensus statement is getting a fresh test. if there is no consensus then we have to rework the statement. It is also the same way we did it last time. Tsavage I launched the RfC because many comments in the thread went beyond sourcing and claimed that the consensus statement itself needed to go. If the close is "support" we can certainly talk about trimming sources, btw. Just like we can talk about the WHO source. (Tsavage I have to say that I find your "oppose" on the basis that there are too many sources, bizarre. if there are three sources that do the job, we are good to go. we can trim sources later, if everybody can agree on which three sources are sufficient) Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: My questioning the large number of sources, the 18 or so citations, has been clearly explained. I was originally looking at it simply from an editorial point of view: I found that 18 citations made it look like the statement was in doubt, or being pushed. Equally, I found it unrealistic to verify the statement with so many sources. In discussing individual sources, the issue of wording of the statement shouldn't come up, because, per WP:RS/AC, if we are saying there is academic or scientific consensus, so must say the sources, directly in that language. If some sources don't quite say that, and there is discussion over interpretation, then of course the wording of the statement may come up as well (you changed the RfC statement to clarify it in mid-discussion, so presentation must be significant). If a source says, "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies," but does not go on to explicitly summarize that as "scientific consensus," then the statement is not supported: how do I know that there aren't 1,000 independent research groups, 50 years of research, and 260 research projects? For the consensus statement, a single solidly reliable source must do the job. Additional sources should only echo what the first source says, and be provided in reasonable number, like one or two, simply for accessible reader assurance. Anything else is synthesis, requiring the combination of two or more sources to support the article statement. If I'm horribly misguided here, please let me know! --Tsavage (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• • "This RFC is asking for support of the 'status quo ante'." No it is not. The paragraph at issue does not exist currently in the article. Look more closely at the actual article. GrayDuck156 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support When the AAAS and the NAS, two of the most prestigious scientific institutions in the world come to the same conclusion, scientific consensus is established. I am particularly saddened by the promotion of the advocacy group ENSSER as being anywhere on par with these institutions. Their "No consensus" opinion is basically the A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism of the consensus of evolution, applied to the GMO consensus. Yobol (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Yobol:: Please be more specific about the NAS source. Which sentence, on which page, directly supports the claim that "[t]here is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food"? How did you conclude that an opinion piece on a web site (the AAAS source) is a reliable source? How did you conclude that "foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques" are equivalent to "conventional food"? (The former phrase seems to be referring to foods derived from traditional genetic engineering whereas the latter could be referring to foods in their original form in nature.) GrayDuck156 (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: No, The sources do not support the content. I am opposing on the issue of the past "sell-by-date" of some of the sources. It is evident to me that it is futile to try to discuss trimming off some of the older references. Using "sources as a weapon" to fend off negative changes to this article is a ridiculous concept to me. This article is clearly under ownership to maintain the status-quo. I really wished to comment in another section, but even a cat only has nine lives. I don't haz battlegrounds. Fylbecatulous talk 15:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: for reasons that I need to flesh out further:
  • undue weight to pro-GMO arguments
    • GMO Critics considerations to this statement have been omitted.
    • The quotes have been cherry picked and manufactured to draw this conclusion without consideration to all of the other material in the articles, studies and reviews that temper such a bold statement.
    • The synthesis of this statement from numerous sources that do not even use the word "consensus" is little more than WP: OR.
  • Inconsistent use of MEDRS.
    • If MEDRS is being used the AAAS and AMA sources are clearly not viable (they are not studies or peer reviews, but political statements by the respective boards) and many of the sources are "too old". I'm not convinced MEDRS is the right standard for this. This is not a drug and is not medical advice. Furthermore, this has to do with things like Toxicology.
    • If MEDRS is not being used, then alternative sources from GMO critics that directly challenge the statement have not been included.
  • Many of the sources are not from the right field of expertise, which I believe should be Food Safety, and Toxicology, in particular. I believe many of the sources are from Pro-GMO sources that are trying to benefit from advances in technology from the "bio" research end, not from the safety or Toxicology and human safety end--the AAAS for example. They are clearly going to be biased in, "let's try it, let's look at the benefits, what's the danger?" frame of mind. The interpretation of the articles reflects this same kind of thinking.
  • The fact that many RS--including those cited--say that GMO products are not sufficiently tested (or cannot be tested because of problems of making human guinea pigs) should be included in the paragraph for balance, and that regulations are not even close to uniform, as the U.S. has very few regulations on GMO safety compared to the E.U. for example, and plenty of RS says this.
  • I have commented on many of the problems discussed here, including the problems with balance and provided RS challenging this statement in the past on the GMO controversies page. I need to dig up those discussions and bring in the RS. Some of the RS I believe is on this talk page. I regret I do not have more time for a more complete post

-David Tornheim (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, David, I think your response isn't applying some core policies correctly. WP:NPOV doesn't say that if Position X is presented, then Position Anti-X has to be presented too. It says that we emphasize arguments in proportion to what's found in reliable sources. As has already been pointed out (did you miss those arguments?) position statements from weighty authoritative bodies like the AAAS citing the WHO are in a completely different ballpark than statements from activism groups like Greenpeace and ENSSR. Per WP:GEVAL, which is policy, we can't give the two categories of sources equal validity.

  The AAAS statement says "The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Acad- emy 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." This is reasonably summarized as "broad consensus".

  And as we're discussing a statement about the health effects of food, absolutely WP:MEDRS is the correct guideline, hard to see how it wouldn't be. Zad68 00:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

This article is not called 'Currently marketed GMO food', and the use of that or a similar qualifier in the lede reads as intentional obfuscation / misleading framing. Using similar construction makes possible absurd statements of fact such as 'All Agent Orange currently on the market poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.'Dialectric (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This leads to a broad point that has gone largely undiscussed, what is "currently"? "Currently marketed GM food" requires:

1) a definition or clarification, to avoid reader confusion between GM crops and foods containing GM ingredients, as the (probably correct) perception may be that new GMO-containing food products come out all the time;

2) some way to reference which crops/foods these are, "currently," as in, right now; while I am under the impression that it is a relatively short food crop list (around a dozen items per Genetically modified crops), and most GM food is food that contains ingredients from three or four GM commodity crops, I have also read that there are GM carrots, lettuce, strawberries and so forth - there is lots of confusing information that doesn't distinguish between research and trial products, and what is on the market, as well as straight misinformation, for example, one article mislabeled the novel pluot plum-apricot cross as GM, and then there are new crops like GM apples and rice, both "approved for 2015-2016."

A "currently" parallel from a reader perspective might be film articles listing current box office totals, or sports articles listing current statistics, which tend to be continually, and not necessarily uniformly, updated as the numbers change. A blanket statement about an unclearly defined set tends to further confuse an already confusing (public) issue. --Tsavage (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

many of the sources discuss the specificity of the claim about safety - that safety has to be assessed on a case by case basis, and is, and that the regulatory process is good enough to assess the relative safety. so yes, until some new science comes out that shows that the GM modification process actually incurs some risk that current regulatory processes do not address, the already-cleared or approved foods are safe enough. (this is one of the reasons that anti-GMO folks made a big deal about the (ludicrous) "electron microscope organisms" touted by Huber... it was supposedly some previously unknown mechanism of toxicity. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The defense of this one phrase, "broad scientific consensus," is getting more convoluted as we go. You say "many of the sources discuss the specificity of the claim about safety" which to me says you expect readers to sift through sources to assemble material to support the statement, instead of looking for pretty near identical consensus wording in the source. Or do the 18 or so citations variously support differnt parts of the entire sentence, some support the consensus, others the eating of, the no greater risk than conventional breeding, and so forth? I'm a simple reader, precisely how am I supposed to verify that impressive consensus statement? You earlier suggested that readers should start with the first source and read until they're satisfied. But they also need to locate discussions of specificity of the claim, where it is explained that the current regulatory framework (where, in the US? Europe? China? globally? is that determined?) is sufficient that any GM food that makes it to market is automatically safe, until, if and when, the science changes and problems are discovered. Really? And you haven't replied to my point 1, making the distinction between new GM crops and new food products containing GM ingredients - that's not splitting hairs, it's normal editorial consideration when we're writing a non-technical article for a general audience. --Tsavage (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

how are you supposed to verify? read them. the first one should do. if that doesn't satisfy you, read on. Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, you are describing WP:OR, which states Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. petrarchan47คุก 00:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The UN's International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development 2009 Global Report, which is used as a source in this article, says, "There are a limited number of properly designed and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health (Domingo, 2000; Pryme and Lembcke, 2003). Among the studies that have been published, some have provided evidence for potential undesirable effects (Pryme and Lembcke, 2003; Pusztai et al., 2003). Taken together, these observations create concern about the adequacy of testing methodologies for commercial GM plants fueling public skepticism and the possibility of lawsuits." (p. 394)[18] Can anyone explain why its conclusions differ from those presented above? TFD (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You realize these are really too old under WP:MEDRS? If this is used as a reference it should perhaps be replaced. Principal sources from 2000 and 2003 are surely too old, and there must have been a wealth of studies since. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are claiming that a report from 2009 is "too" old, then do you agree that all of the sources with dates of 2009 listed above to support the "scientific consensus" should be stricken? If you are using WP:MEDRS to measure the quality of the statement, do you agree that the AAAS and AMA statements should be removed as potential sources, because these are not studies but political positions taken by their respective Board of Directors? If not, do you agree that other reliable sources that are not peer reviewed studies (or reviews) that are from entities such as Food & Water Watch, Greenpeace, [http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/ ENSSR} and similar organizations who are not GMO cheerleaders should have some say on this or any other statement about GMO's? Or are only those who support and defend GMO's allowed a voice in the reporting of GMO's? David Tornheim (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If 2009 is the cut-off, then there should not be sources presented before then. And you still need to explain why what the UN said six years ago is no longer valid. For example, a source should say, "until six years ago, the science on GMO was unsettled, but scientific consensus was reached in 2010." The UN source is so authoritative, that you need a source that specifically addresses why it is wrong. TFD (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Can't you see the problem with "There are a limited number of properly designed and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health (Domingo, 2000; Pryme and Lembcke, 2003)"? Concentrate on the meaning of the word "are"! Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

TFD, responding to you above and to your follow up on my Talk page. Here is the picture as far as I understand it from the literature.

• there is the scientific consensus which is that currently marketed GM food is as safe as conventional food and sees no credible mechanism how currently marketed GM food even could be harmful. Standing on that spot, are most scientists, pretty much every regulatory agency, most farmers (who have adopted the technology), and the companies that make and sell the products. In this perspective, there is a keen awareness that it would be very possible to make GM food that could be harmful, but we are reasonably aware of the risks and the tests we have are good enough to weed out products that would be harmful (although better analytical tools are always wanted and welcome)
• Way over yonder you have some scientists, a huge and vocal online community, some advocacy organizations, and some members of the organics industry, that make wildly exaggerated claims about dangers of GM food, promote crazy mechanisms for toxicity (like "electron microscope organisms" somehow created by genetic modification process) and who almost never make a distinction between currently marketed GM food and any possible GM food product (e.g. who point up the dangers of allergens being introduced into the food supply - but that is a risk that is known and managed in the RW product development process and currently marketed GM foods do not appear to have any special allergenicity)
• You have a very few credible scientists - like Domingo - who take the view that while currently marketed GM food is ~probably~ OK, there are questions that need answering and we probably went too fast in disseminating the technology. There is a paragraph on his work in the GM controversies article (just search for "Domingo")
• In WP terminology, in my view, the first position is the mainstream that we present in WP's voice, the 2nd is FRINGE pseudoscience (sometimes just bad science), and the 3rd is, I think, a "significant minority voice". That is my own analysis. I made a proposal a while back on the Talk page of the GM Food controversies to discuss working this into the article but it didn't get much traction.
• With regard to the age of sources... GM food has been on the market now almost twenty years. There is no real debate in the mainstream scientific community about the technology or the relative safety of food, and there has been no good science done to raise any questions, since forever. The analogy aspartame, not, say questions about the PPAR inhibition (e.g thiazolidinediones) - see this pubmed search - plenty of recent reviews). So the relative safety of GM food is not a question that gets raised a lot in the scientific literature and the sources about the consensus are indeed older. Probably the most interesting scientific question out there, is "what would be the results of a credible, very long term feeding study?" There is a group called The Grace Project funded by the EU that has been running a project to plan and execute such a study. I hope they do run that. Jytdog (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this RfC is, to a large extent, inappropriate because a good-faith attempt at resolving the dispute about the WHO citation has not yet occurred. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, "Requests for Comment generally require that at least an effort be made to discuss the matter in question before making the request." Comments like "I suggest you drop the stick" do not pass for attempts at productive discussion.GrayDuck156 (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

These points might be slightly off-topic but I think might be useful for seeking a compromise. I have several concerns with the wording of the statement. First, the term "broad scientific consensus" seems unnecessarily ambiguous and subjective. The word "consensus" can mean anything from majority agreement to unanimity of opinion. Why not use a word that is not subject to multiple interpretations? The word "scientific" raises the question of whose opinion counts, which is a subjective determination. The word "broad" also has no precise, or even clear, meaning. Second, starting the sentence with the words "There is..." seems clumsy and obscures the subject of the sentence. GrayDuck156 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

as i mentioned above: 1) please comment on content, not contributor. 2) the discussion above got much broader than your issue with the WHO source. hence the RfC. I think you will find that the community upholds the consensus statement about the relative safety of eating GM food, but we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for replying. The most recent review cited in the UN report was Pryme and Lembcke, 2003. I suppose what they said was accurate - few studies had been made, but since then the there have been lots of studies. The EU report for example reviews studies from to the period 2001-2010.

One of the studies mentioned in the UN report was Domingo 2000. Domingo published a review study in 2011 in Environment International, which says there is a balance between reports claiming currently consumed GMO foods are safe and those saying they are not.[19] His report shows 119 cites in Google scholar.[20]

Also, per MEDRS guidelines, some of the sources for the wording should be removed. For example, the Washington Post article does not meet MEDRS.

TFD (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

there are a few non-MEDRS sources in there, I agree. They are high-quality secondary sources that report on the fact of the scientific consensus, not on the content of that consensus. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to Domingo's 2011 review study. Why does it have less weight than a Washington Post article? TFD (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

see above. if you read the reliable sources, domingo has a minority position. the washington post source simply reports on the consensus, as i mentioned above. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If (high quality) news media can evaluate and summarize scientific findings in this case, then presumably that should be so in most cases. Here, the single author of the Washington Post piece appears from her credits to be a food, science and health journalist with no scientific credentials, and the "consensus" she reports on is her own finding, using an "impartiality test" she has devised to determine which organizations seem to have taken sides and which seem neutral, by examining the ratio of risks to benefits each mentions - since explaining her method is central to her article and conclusion, I then have to determine if I agree with that method, and with the exclusions of presumably partisan organizations that she makes in determining consensus. It's all pretty confusing to me, and also illustrates the problem with too many cited sources: how is an editor, let alone a reader, expected to wade through all this - it would take hours? --Tsavage (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• so the edits today by the 66... IP are typical of the POV-pushers who come by the GMO articles and bomb it. That is why we have the huge pile of sources. People feel so strongly about this. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No, there is zero justification for SYNTH - you still have not shown one strong source which makes the claim you are trying to make in WPs voice. You have added a string of sources in violation of OR/SYNTH, and conveniently an IP shows up that you can use as an example of the great stress "anti-GMO" advocates out you through. There is no one on WP who feels as strongly as you about GMOs, given your contribs, so save it. This RfC came only days into a fruitful conversation and was uncalled for - what it did was obfuscate the conversation about the OR/SYNTH problem completely. petrarchan47คุก 09:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are correct, I do have a point of view on this subject. But I have no doubt that you do too, and it is unfair to dismiss my criticism on the basis of my point of view. This article is about GM food, not "currently marketed GM food," and acknowledging that there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GM food is a highly relevant piece of information that needs to be in the introduction. Furthermore, the above referenced letter notes that studies concluding that GM foods are as safe as conventional foods are often performed by researchers connected to GM companies with an interest in marketing their product. Additionally, in reading their discussion under "There is no consensus on GM food safety," it is clear that their statement is regarding currently marketed GM food.

So although my initial complaint was about the failure of this Wikipedia article to note a lack of scientific consensus on the safety of all GM food (versus currently marketed GM food), I'd also now like to point out that I think the statement about consensus on currently marketed GM food is not only misleading, but incorrect.

66.169.76.198 (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

My perspective on this is not relevant. WP is all about what the reliable sources say. WP has reported for several years now that there is a scientific consensus on the relative safety of eating GM food. You also raise a question about scope. The scope of this article is actual GM food, not theoretical GM food - its purpose is to inform readers about what they might actually encounter. This issue has been discussed on this talk page as well. it is a conversation we can have again, but please do read the discussions in the archives. (There is however general discussion of the risks in the GM food controversies article) Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not think anyone would claim that all GMO food is safe, just the GMO food currently sold. Obviously there are toxic plants (mushrooms, poison berries, etc.) so possibly conventional food could be engineered to produce toxins. TFD (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

_______________

In regards to your comment that this article is about actual GM food, Jytdog, that is precisely why I pointed out that the criticisms leveled in the published discussion "No scientific consensus on GM food safety" are referring to currently marketed GM food. There is no scientific consensus on the safety of currently marketed GM food.

The letter attests to this, and lays out a clear argument against such claims. The main point of criticism that I anticipate is "Why did these scientists choose to sign a letter rather than simply conduct further food safety research to prove their point?" I agree that research would certainly be the preferable option to a letter. The problem, however, largely has to do with patent law on GM seeds. In order to conduct a study on potential health impacts of GM food, researchers need to control all conditions related to how the selected crop to be studied was grown. This means they need to get the original seed. However, patent law largely restricts researchers from accessing this seed without first receiving permission from the company that produces it. Problems arising from this include allegations that the company selectively denies permission based on anticipated results, as well as researchers being required to sign contracts stating that they will submit their results to the biotech company for approval before publishing the results.

The problem this creates for independent research, a problem that has also been noted by the United Nations Environmental Programme, was brought to the attention of the EPA in 2009, when a group of 29 scientists stated that "as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the tech­nol­ogy." In response, the American Seed Trade Association agreed to offer blanket research agreements to all public universities. This agreement allows public university researchers to access GM seeds for studies on subjects such as agronomics, yield and pest management. It does not, however, open up research access for health-related studies. Instead, the biotech industry, which has a clear vested interest in the results of studies examining whether there are health risks associated with GMOs, retains the ability to limit who can study this issue, and how those studies are carried out. Regardless of whether our ongoing discussion concludes that there is scientific consensus or not, this narrative of restricted research is important and, in order for this article to avoid presenting a biased claim, this information should be added to the article.

Restricted research has had a clear impact on the total number of health-related studies on GM food. Jose L Domingo published several papers regarding this issue, all of which concluded that there is scant scientific literature on the human health risks of GM foods, let alone whether they are equivalent in risk to non-GM foods. His most recent study, published in 2011 in Environmental International, "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants," found that although there continue to be scant studies on the human health risks of GM foods, there is a balance between those that do and do not find risk. You say that Domingo has a minority position. I can think of a certain letter signed by at least 300 scientists who would disagree... What's more, his position does not discount the quantitative content of his claim. The very bulk of scientific literature on the subject-- the scientific literature that this article is presumably referring to when it cites a "scientific consensus"-- does not in fact demonstrate a scientific consensus. This problem is, of course, in addition to the fact that the citations on WP consensus claim either do not actually support this claim (AMA, WHO) or are poor objective sources (the AAAS Board of Directors letter, which was refuted by a group of scientists for unrelated reasons). A cursory glance at the National Academies study also did not support this claim. Feel free to let me know which page to check.

The United Nations Environment Programme also disagrees that Domingo's review should be discredited as a "minority position." In their International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, published in 2009, they cite his review when noting that there are a limited number of properly designed and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health related to GM food. They also note that, of the limited numbers of studies published, some have found adverse effects. If you consider yourself to have more authority on the relevancy of Domingo's work than the UN, I invite you to make this claim directly. And interestingly enough, the WHO was a co-partner on this publication..... That citation referencing the WHO FAQ needs to go.

I also checked out your citation of the American Medical Association's "Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health" (the link you provide does not work, by the way) and this source also does not support the claim that there is a scientific consensus on that GM food on the market is just as conventional food. Instead, they merely note how the claim of substantial equivalence is made. The FDA reviews a safety assessment created by the producer of that GM crop, in which the producer assesses whether the GM crop "possesses similar levels and variations of critical nutrients and toxicants as its conventional counterpart." The AMA then goes on to say that there is an ongoing effort to improve abilities to detect toxicants and other unintended effects. There are important questions to ask here, including which toxicants are studied, and whether the adverse health effects reported in scientific literature, if true, are related to toxicants or some other factor. And as the ongoing issue with chemical safety in the U.S. demonstrates, there is a significant potential for bias when the producer of a product is the same group doing the safety review. It is irresponsible and, as with the WHO FAQ citation, blatantly false to hold up this source as evidence of scientific consensus.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics also states that there is no consensus on whether GM food has negative health effects, and cites the need for further study of this issue.

All of this further presses the point that it is inaccurate for this Wikipedia article to say that there is a consensus on the issue. As far as I can tell, I am citing peer-reviewed studies and major sources of public policy which explicitly say there is no consensus. This article, on the other hand, misinterprets sources that more often than not do not claim consensus, or in some cases are questionably subjective (such as the AAAS Board of Directors letter). 66.169.76.198 (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Your assessment of Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health is at odds with the contents of that document. I suggest you strike it and any other source misreprestations you've made here. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll address your point in a moment, but I'd like to first note that the bulk of my argument remains unaddressed. 1) There is limited research on the health effects of GM food due to patent law; this lack of study is directly noted by credible sources such as the UN Environment Programme and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, so it doesn't make sense to consider these sources less credible than the current synthesis of citations used to claim that there is a consensus on the issue of currently marketed GM food, especially considering that many of these current sources do not make this direct claim 2) Given this lack of studies, it would be irresponsible to claim there is a consensus on the issue; since when does ignorance equate to scientific consensus?

Regarding the "Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health," you need to be more specific about what point you think I've misrepresented. At no point in the document does it say that there is a consensus on whether GM foods are as safe for consumption as convention foods. What they say is "FDA’s science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The Council supports this science-based approach, and believes that thorough pre-market safety assessment and the FDA’s requirement that any material difference between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts be disclosed in labeling, are effective in ensuring the safety of bioengineered food. To better characterize the potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that permarket safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement."

This is a paper arguing that in order for the FDA to require labeling of GM food, they need to establish that a difference exists between GM and non-GM foods. Evidence examining whether such a difference exists relies on premarket safety assessments, which the FDA does not currently require. So as I said, this paper is an examination of how the FDA evaluates GM food, and is not an assessment of whether there is scientific consensus on the safety of GM food compared to convention food. If anything, this paper serves to refute the existence of consensus, because it notes limits to current GM food assessments, such as the use of voluntary premarket self-testing. Considering that a biotech company can release their product on the market without any review for potential health impacts and, as per the patent issue I mentioned earlier, block potentially negative research on their product, the landscape of research on GM food has been very limited-- hence organizations such as the UN and AND noting the need for more research on the issue. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The issues you bring up aren't issues at all. There is, generally speaking, a lack of research on biological topics. This lack of research is usually the product of having to prioritize limited resources. With the case of GMO studies, the petition by the scientists was done with frankly no research by the scientists at all, and they have later admitted not understanding the actual legality of researching patented crops. To be brief it isn't an issue, Monsanto for instance has an open agreement that allows any researchers at a US university to research any of their products, and in general companies will normally provide researchers with any materials they need to study their products free of charge. You may notice your source on the lack of studies on GMOs doesn't bring up patents. It also doesn't bring up the fact that GMO research in Europe has been primarily hindered by environmentalists who have been destroying research crops and threatening scientists for over a decade. This also extends to the US when Michigan State had its biotech lab burned down because they were studying GMOs.

To address your other statements; we haven't performed toxicological studies on most conventional food either. There are in fact many things we do not know about conventional foods or their safety. The statement being argued is whether GMOs are comparable conventional food with regards to human health, and not whether GMOs are safe to eat. We don't know about the general safety of food, but epidemiological data and toxicological studies done thus far haven't been able to discern differences between GMOs and their conventional counterparts.TypingAway (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, their testing methods leave a lot to be desired. "Current testing methods being used in bio-tech companies appear to be inadequate. For instance, only chemical analysis of some nutrients are reported and generally consider the GM crops equal to its conventional crops when no major differences are detected between the compound compositions in both products." And, it should be known that "At the present there is no peer-reviewed publication on clinical studies of GMF effects on human health." Aren't most of the studies performed thus far done by the biotech companies?

Reuters prints: "According to the petition, some scientists working for the federal government are finding their research restricted or censored when it conflicts with agribusiness industry interests" and they are asking for protection. The USDA's Tom Vilsack and the FDA's Michael Taylor (both hold top positions) have worked for Monsanto, Taylor, in charge of food safety, as VP and chief lobbyist. petrarchan47คุก 05:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

______________

Jytdog, I do not see why I have to read through 20 sources - can you please id the most reliable source, saying where it says what, and we can compare it with the review study. Also, review studies are the most reliable sources per medrs. Ideally you should present a review study. TFD (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

you don't need to. no one "needs" to. They are roughly in order of importance. Sources 3 and 5 should probably be switched. but you one can stop reading sources as soon as you they are satisifed, and if you they reach the end and are still not satisfied, you they are likely a True Believer and there is nothing to be done for such a person anyway. At what point do you think the sourcing is sufficient? Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC) (note, fixed formatting of all italics.. was a typo Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)) (replace "you" to make it clear that this wasn't meant to be personal. Left "you" in last question, b/c that was a real question to TfD. my apologies for the sloppy writing and for the offense given.Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC))

The RfC is not about whether GMOs are safe, but whether sources support the statement that broad scientific consensus exists in RS. There is no reason to argue about whether WP:SYNTH is suddenly acceptable: it isn't.

A review from January 2015 concludes that there is no consensus on whether GMOs are safe OR dangerous - the consensus is that there is much to know, and that proper studies have not been conducted.

Hilbeck et al. Environmental Sciences Europe (2015) No scientific consensus on GMO safety

For decades, the safety of GMOs has been a hotly controversial topic that has been much debated around the world. Published results are contradictory, in part due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of available procedures, and differences in the analysis and interpretation of data. Such a lack of consensus on safety is also evidenced by the agreement of policymakers from over 160 countries - in the UN's Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius - to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for ‘safe’. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests. The joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature

...the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist outside of the above depicted internal circle of stakeholders. The health, environment, and agriculture authorities of most nations recognize publicly that no blanket statement about the safety of all GMOs is possible and that they must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, the claim that it does exist - which continues to be pushed in the above listed circles - is misleading and misrepresents or outright ignores the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of scientific opinions among scientists on this issue. petrarchan47คุก 03:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, to better participate in this discussion, you too should comment on the content, rather than the contributor. I would also like to point out that, in addition to the cited WHO page explicitly not supporting the claim that there is consensus, the statement from the AAAS Board of Directors is also problematic. This was not a review of the scientific literature or an official policy; this was a statement made by a small group of people. And, though not addressing whether or not there is consensus on the issue, a group of scientists issued a letter in disagreement with the AAAS Board, which further calls in to question the validity of using the AAAS Board of Directors statement as a source for the claim that there is consensus. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, that is really offensive. I am not a "true believer." I think however we should follow reliable sources policy and MEDRS guidelines, which means we should report what review studies say rather than newspaper articles. Can you please identify the source that I am supposed to accept instead of the review study and mention a page no. so I do not have to read through dozens of pages.

In the aspartame articles, you and I always agree on the types of sources that should be used - why is this article different?

BTW I have no opinion on whether GMO foods are safe or what the scientific consensus is. But I would like to discuss the sources.

TFD (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

sorry about that TfD, the "you" was meant to be "a reader", not personal to you. fixed that. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

TFD, I provided a more extensive breakdown of the problems with the current citations used by Jytdog above, as well as references to sources and reviews which conclude that there is no scientific consensus on this issue. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop personalizing this. The content under discussion was authored by many people, not just me. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. It was, at times, uncalled for. Please address my criticisms. Thanks. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the demo, Jytdog, that seems like a fair revision. That was not the criticism I was referring to, however. Perhaps I placed it in a confusing way for this discussion. It ends directly above the comment from TFD, where you just edited your response. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Some notes about the "No scientific consensus on GMO safety" paper: Just the fact that there scientists claiming there is no consensus, doesn't mean there isn't a consensus. There are a number of scientists that oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, but this doesn't mean that there isn't a broad consensus that humans are contributing to climate change. The paper seems to be more an opinion piece by a group of scientists (including notable anti-gm activists like Vandana Shiva and Michael Hansen) than anything resembling a review. (See a discussion about the paper here for more info). The paper is also published in the same journal that republished the famous and widely criticised Séralini study (which the paper also cites in it's defence), that was retracted for not living up to scientific standards (see Séralini affair). This would at the very least suggest that there is some bias involved here. The organisation also seems to be running a campaign where anyone with a relevant academic degree can sign up to their "no scientific consensus" list. Øln (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not an accurate characterization to compare the lack of consensus on climate change to the lack of consensus on GM food. Scientists refuting consensus on climate change were extremely well-funded. Scientists desiring to study potential health impacts of GM food, however, are not even able to access the basic materials needed to conduct their study. I mentioned this in a comment above, as a way to explain why these scientists published a letter rather than a series of studies. This restriction on research is important and needs to be taken into account when considering whether there is a consensus. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if you take that paper out of the equation. The broad scientific consensus claim appears to be based on the The statement of the AAAS Board. But its problematic in a way that is fundamentally opposed to one of the 5 pillars. The AAAS Board statement only commented on a review that covered a large number of studies. But never said that there was broad consensus, or anything like that. The review may imply that, and so the AAAS Board statement may imply it. But it is not specifically stated. Since it is not stated it appears to be an analysis of what the statement says or a synthesis of it and the remaining sources. Thats OR, and as one of the 5 pillars OR is non negotiable. The best this RFC can do is come up with a local consensus that cant stand opposing one of the pillars. AlbinoFerret 20:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Source and location was provided, strike comment. AlbinoFerret 01:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Øln, certainly showing that a number of scientists say there is no consensus does not mean there is no consensus. And note that in climate change the scientists who say there is no consensus are writing outside academic publications and no academically published articles question global warming. But how do we know there is a consensus? Because review studies tell us that. The authors of these studies have examined all the literature and come to that conclusion. But in this case, that has not been presented, rather a review study says that no consensus exists. That does not mean necessarily that the review study is accurate, but we need equal or better sources to challenge it. TFD (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The authors of what studies? I have seen no claim beyond the AAAS letter that there is a consensus. The only review to have been conducted on all the literature was done by Domingo. The claim that he's a minor source is perplexing. Wouldn't the purpose of rejecting a minor source be because their results are not possible to corroborate? Yet you can go to the same two portals that Domingo used, and check on his results for yourself. We might not feel like doing that, but it does make his results more easily verifiable. Furthermore, the UN cites him in their report, among others, in claiming that there is limited research. And the UN, as well as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, note that there is no consensus on the issue.

There are major sources claiming that there is no consensus. Meanwhile, the citations for the claim that there is a consensus often do not actually say this. If there is a reputable literature review claiming that there is a consensus, I'm eager to see it, particularly if it's anywhere near as robust as the literature review carried out by Domingo. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You misread me, I was saying there are studies showing that there is consensus on climate change. Another editor had tried to draw a connection between climate change science and GMO safety. TFD (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the article should use a more precise phrase than "conventional food." I think changing that phrase to "foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant breeding [or "hybridization," or something like that] techniques" would be less ambiguous. GrayDuck156 (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

quotes from all sources

just want to note here for ease of reference: Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

1. AAS source says "Moreover, the AAAS Board said, 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 just about every major scientific or medical organization on the planet. That is pretty much the definition of "broad scientific consensus>"
2. 2 decade of research, is already quoted in the ref, but again "=The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." (p. 16)"
3. 3 pamela ronald review article: "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." (bolded for those calling WP:SYN above)
4. 4 AMA source, already quoted in the ref. This is provided to give a specific example of the organizations named by the AAAS. "Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature."" Further says "Despite strong consumer interest in mandatory labeling of bioengineered foods, the FDA’s science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The Council supports this science-based approach, and believes that thorough pre-market safety assessment and the FDA’s requirement that any material difference between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts be disclosed in labeling, are effective in ensuring the safety of bioengineered food. "
5. Sci Am: longer quote: "Williams (David Williams, a cellular biologist who specializes in vision) concedes that he is among a tiny minority of biologists raising sharp questions about the safety of GM crops'....Whether Williams is right or wrong, one thing is undeniable: despite overwhelming evidence that GM crops are safe to eat, the debate over their use continues to rage..."
6. WHO: This source is one of those mentioned in AAAS source, provided to give another specific example. "While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are the potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.....GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. ... WHO will keep paying due attention to the safety of GM foods from the view of public health protection, in close collaboration with FAO and other international bodies." I note, that the WHO has raised no alarms over currently marketed food. This is a
7. FAO already quoted above. "Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU)."

This citation is already being extensively discussed elsewhere on the Talk page, so I'm assuming you have this here for reference rather than as a point of discussion. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• 8a - Nature editorial. "GM food has an uncanny ability to spook consumers. It does not matter that many of us have been consuming GM cornflakes, sweet corn, starches and sugars in processed food for over a decade. It does not matter that no adverse health effects have been recorded from eating them. Nor does it matter that august agencies, such as the World Health Organization, the US National Academy of Sciences, the European Commission or the American Medical Association, have come out with ringing endorsements of their safety."

Where are these ringing endorsements? Can you provide the first-hand sources?66.169.76.198 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• 8b German academies "In principle, no absolute guarantee can ever be offered for the safety of any food, whether produced conventionally or from GM plants. It is common knowledge that conventionally produced food can be the cause of allergies for predisposed persons; nuts (and particularly peanuts), strawberries, shellfish and wheat are all familiar examples. Foods of plant origin often contain toxic or carcinogenic substances; nature has provided plants with a large arsenal of defensive substances as protection against damage from feeding insects or from bacterial and fungal infections. Moreover, plant products may be contaminated by fungal toxins, a number of which are strongly carcinogenic; Fusaria toxins, which often pollute wheat and maize (even when grown “organically”), are examples. It has been estimated that in the industrial countries most of carcinogenic substances ingested derive from “natural” plant food. Since absolute safety is never possible, the basis for approving GM food products is the failure – after extensive prescribed testing – to find any adverse indicators. Such tests show that these foods are at least as safe and nutritious as the corresponding products from conventionally produced crops. (bolding from original)
• 8c english Summary of French academies report: "The risks associated with transgenic plants (herbicide tolerance, resistance to predators and diseases, sterility, antibiotic resistance, allergenic properties) are currently under analysis. This analysis shows that all criticisms against GMOs can be set aside based for the most part on strictly scientific criteria."
• 8d Italian academies - note that they call this a "consensus" document and that they note that they consulted with:
  • Food and Agriculture Organization - FAO
  • World Health Organization - WHO
  • The Royal Society of London
  • U.S. National Academy of Sciences
  • The Royal Society of Canada
  • Accademia Nazionale delle Scienze e Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
  • Brazilian Academy of Sciences
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Indian National Science Academy
  • Mexican Academy of Sciences
  • Third World Academy of Sciences
  • Australian Academy of Science
  • Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
  • Consiglio Scientifico per le Biotecnologie in Agricoltura – Regione Lombardia

and they say: (care of google translate" " GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary authorization, must, on the basis of current knowledge, it is safe to use human and animal food. • It should therefore abandoned the Manichaean attitude "pro" or "anti" GMO intended in together in favor of a rational consensus because informed about the process and products arising. These conclusions are in line with what has already been expressed by the most prestigious organizations national and international scientific. The European Commissioner for Research, Philippe Busquin, EU at the end of the study lasted 15 years (1985-2000), and the involved 400 public research centers for a total of 70 million euro, has come to same conclusions stating that "research shows that plants genetically modified and the products developed and marketed up to now, according to the usual procedures risk assessment showed no risk to human health or the environment. Indeed, the use of a more precise technology and the most accurate assessments during the Regulatory probably make these plants and products even safer for the conventional " note that this even a stronger statement than the one we use

• 8e washington post: "The organizations I found that pass, though, form a compelling coalition. The National Academies, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the Royal Society and the European Commission are all on the same side. Although it’s impossible to prove anything absolutely safe, and all of those groups warn that vigilance on GMOs and health is vital, they all agree that there’s no evidence that it’s dangerous to eat genetically modified foods. Even the Center for Science in the Public Interest is on board, and it has never been accused of being sanguine about food risks. I’m not the first journalist to notice the consensus. Science-oriented publications including Nature and Scientific American have taken a hard look at safety and also concluded there’s no evidence that GMOs are bad for us. Nathanael Johnson, who’s doing yeoman’s fact-finding work at Grist.org, concurs."
• 8f: UC Davis ag extension: "While genetic engineering of foods continues to generate concern and controversy for some consumers, evidence to date has not indicated that any foods developed for human consumption using genetic engineering techniques pose risks greater than foods produced using traditional methods. "
• 8g Trends in Biotechnology (this is about golden rice) "As the journal Nature editorialized in 1992, a broad scientific consensus holds that ‘the same physical and biological laws govern the response of organisms modified by modern molecular and cellular methods and those produced by classical methods. ... [Therefore] no conceptual distinction exists between genetic modification of plants and microorganisms by classical methods or by molecular techniques that modify DNA and transfer genes.... In contrast to plants modified with recombinant DNA technology, those constructed with less precise techniques, such as hybridization or mutagenesis, generally are subject to no government scrutiny or requirements (or opposition from activists) at all.... However, these constructions are less precisely crafted, less well characterized and less predictable than recombinant DNA constructions. Thus, we have a situation in which for more than two decades the degree of regulatory scrutiny (and therefore, the time and expense required for the development of new varieties) has been inversely proportional to the perceived degree of risk. This is absurd. Regulators and activists are not the only villains of the piece. The media – and even scientific journals (see Ref. [4]) – have been undiscriminating and overly tolerant of the misrepresentations and distortions of anti-biotechnology activists..."
• 8h Li, Quan; McCluskey, Jill; Wahl, Thomas (2004). "Effects of information on consumers' willingness to pay for GM-corn-fed beef". Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 2 (2): 1–16. doi:10.2202/1542-0485.1058
• 8i International Council for Science "Currently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat. Food safety assessments by national regulatory agencies in several countries have deemed currently available GM foods to be as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts and suitable for human consumption. This view is shared by several intergovernmental agencies, including the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission on food safety, which has 162 member countries, the European Commission (EC), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Further, there is no evidence of any ill effects from the consumption of foods containing genetically modified ingredients. Since GM crops were first cultivated commercially in 1995, many millions of meals have been made with GM ingredients and consumed by people in several countries, with no demonstrated adverse effects."
• 9 national academies - also emphasizing all the testing that is done: "In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic engineering techniques used in food production. This may be because developers of bioengineered organisms perform extensive compositional analyses to determine that each phenotype is desirable and to ensure that unintended changes have not occurred in key components of food."
• 10 Key, in Journal of Royal Society of Med: "GM crops are tightly regulated by several government bodies. The European Food Safety Authority and each individual member state have detailed the requirements for a full risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed.34 In the USA, the Food and Drug Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are all involved in the regulatory process for GM crop approval.35 Consequently, GM plants undergo extensive safety testing prior to commercialization (for an example see http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/KeyTopics/efsa_locale-1178620753812_GMO.htm). Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA. There is little documented evidence that GM crops are potentially toxic."

• there you go. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Here are the dates of the above references.

• 1. AAAS Source Oct 2012.
• 2. decade of research 2010
• 3. pamela ronald review article May 2011
• 4. AMA 2012
• 5. Sci Am Aug 2013
• 6 WHO May 2014
• 7. FAO 2004
• 8a Nature editorial September 2013
• 8b German academies 2006 [21]
• 8c english Summary of French academies report Dead link
• 8d Italian academies 2004
• 8e washington post OCT 2013
• 8f UC Davis ag extension 2006
• 8g Trends in Biotechnology 2009
• 8h Li, Quan; McCluskey, Jill; Wahl, Thomas 2004
• 8i International Council for Science 2003
• 9 national academies 2004 [22]
• 10 Key, in Journal of Royal Society of Med 2008 AlbinoFerret 17:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks for that AlbinoFerret but a couple fixes. #4 is AMA and 8g is Trends in Biotechnology. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, copy paste got me again. AlbinoFerret 21:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

comments

• on source 4. The Council is saying that a thorough premarket safety assessments ensure safety, they are not saying that such assessments exist-- they don't. The premarket safety assessments are voluntary.

"FDA’s science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The Council supports this science-based approach, and believes that thorough pre-market safety assessment and the FDA’s requirement that any material difference between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts be disclosed in labeling, are effective in ensuring the safety of bioengineered food. To better characterize the potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that permarket safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement."66.169.76.198 (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• on source 5. First point, biologists are not the only ones who study GM food. Second point, this is his subjective opinion-- and he can't be sure, as he goes on to note, because "scientists who see problems with GM food... keep quiet." Last, he is pointing to the same issue I've called out: it is difficult for scientists to study potential health impacts of GM food.66.169.76.198 (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

about your comment on source 4. Please name on GM food that has reached the market in the US without those assessments being done. Yes, it is under the law "voluntary" but no one has ever brought a GM food to market without getting clearance. This is widely known and commented on. Really - name one. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm apt enough at finding things on online, but I have no idea how one would begin to locate a list of approved GM foods and their premarket safety assessments without directly calling the FDA. I don't imagine that information is publicly available online; if you know it is, it'd be good to share. Yet even if the biotech industry did in fact submit voluntary assessments in every case, common sense can tell you how little this means for the safety of the food in question. If that common sense doesn't speak to you, however, but you're still curious, I'd recommend looking at Clean Water Act compliance, which is also largely conducted through self-assessment, and is fraught with instances of industry abuse, such as omitting, manipulating or, in some cases, blatantly falsifying their submitted data. If this seems unrelated to the discussion to you, let me explain: once it is known that self-assessment by an industry is the primary source of market safety evaluation, you should immediately be suspicious, and I do not you are applying appropriate skepticism in this case. There is a history of violation when self-assessment is used. I consider the CWA a good example for a quick search, only because the longer history of the CWA will make information easier for you locate than trying to find it for GM foods. Just if you're curious about that issue; I don't feel like doing more research on this matter.

A quick glace at the Pamela Ronald review reveals it is from a journal with an equivalent impact rating to that of the Domingo study, which makes it seem like there is a double standard applied regarding which sources are deemed acceptable in this discussion. A cursory glance at her study shows that one of her first citations for the safety of GM food didn't even have to do with food-- she cited an environmental journal looking at environmental issues. This is a strategy noted in the "No Consensus" letter-- many studies claiming that there is a consensus on the health issue are citing sources that do not even evaluate the health issue. All too often, the strategy of these "consensus" claimants is to create a wall of citations that does not actually support their claim.. As for the rest, I'm too tired to bother evaluating these sources. The idea that the burden of proof should fall so heavily on the opposers in this discussion to review all the pro-consensus sources, while the pro-consensus folks review few if any of the sources I have submitted, is distasteful. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

How does a Washington Post article meet MEDRS? TFD (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sources 3 (Pamela Ronald) and 8g (Henry I Miller) and 8e (Washington Post): I noticed that only two sources (Ronald and Miller) use the exact term, "broad scientific consensus," so I checked them out and they are both highly visible, public proponents of biotechnology in agriculture, including genetic engineering. This would seem to make them less than independent sources. For that same reason, neither would pass the "impartiality test" that is the basis for the Washington Post findings: "Does the person or organization you trust admit to both risks and benefits? If not, chances are good that your source has a dog — financial or ideological — in the fight." --Tsavage (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Since the dates of origin of these sources / studies / opinions / whatever / are being called into question in some of the concerns, it would be helpful to have that listed amongst your sources list. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 12:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I just looked up all the dates and added them under the quotes. Since there are a good amount of sources in the last five years I think it would be a good idea to prune off the older stuff per WP:MEDDATE. AlbinoFerret 17:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry for the late reply. I too agree entirely that all older sources should be weaned off. Five years sounds appropriate for medical research. Hope this gets noticed because this is one of the most important issues. This is one complicated RfC. Still have not !voted and perhaps will not, dreading the backlash. Thanks again. Added: I see the sub-section below this that you started, also on June 1. I shall read and comment there. Thanks again. Fylbecatulous talk 15:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think most of the sources above take care to observe the distinction between the known and possible risks, and we should be sure to do the same. One of the little paradoxes of life is that processes that are essentially safe can be made unsafe when you start believing they can't be unsafe. GM crops that are designed sanely, undergo regulatory scrutiny, and are approved for the market in industrialized countries are quite safe, to the point where no accident has yet been reported. This does not mean that a GM free-for-all won't lead to some incident. There are things that worry me like canola designed to produce 'fish oil' components. Lipid biochemistry is very complex, touching on major issues like NSAIDs and cannabinoids and heart disease, and regulates many important processes such as inflammation. We already have the terrible example of trans fats to know that unnatural lipids can cause Holocaust-like levels of mortality and still be very hard to document or regulate. When GM manufacturers tamper with plant lipid mixtures with the intent of feeding them to fish (i.e. lowered regulatory scrutiny) to change their human nutritional values, there are real risks. The responsible approach, whether for a regulator or an encyclopedia, is to recognize these risks and then, so long as we can, say that thankfully so far with good management they have been averted. Wnt (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• on source 3 Pamela Ronald's article is not a review article on GMO safety but on "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security." She provides two sources for her statement on safety: the U.S. (2002) and EU (2004/2008/2010) governments. She is a geneticist. Domingo otoh is a toxicologist who reviewed studies on GMO safety. MEDRS says, "Ideal sources for biomedical content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews...written by experts in the relevant field." TFD (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You think a professor at UC Davis, one of the top universities in the world at studying agriculture, ecology and genetics, who is also the director of their laboratory of crop genetics, isn't in the relevant field to discuss GMO safety? Clearly the journal who published her paper thought she was qualified, and we should trust their judgement over that of a Wikipedia editor. Additionally the National Academies and the Joint Research Centre are not "the U.S. and EU governments".TypingAway (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not whether you trust her opinion over mine - I have no opinion - but whether you trust the opinion of a geneticist who bases her opinion on two sources over a toxicologist who has reviewed all the papers written on the toxicology of GMO. MEDRS says we should give greater weight to the review study - do you have any policy, guideline or even common sense explanations why we should not? Are there any review studies that support your opinion? TFD (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to argue for this particular paper at the moment, but in general I think an article like this should try to gather many sources and viewpoints. Certainly a preference for high-quality sources should not exclude the presentation of all notable viewpoints. A well-written article should say what the best sources think on safety, but also outline all the main objections as well as all the main arguments why they are safe. I think some people here sound like they expect a Wikipedia article to make it sound like the issue is settled and this is what the Truth is, but that's not what we're here for - we're here to help people research any aspect of the issues they want. Wnt (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Please note that some of these sources are not listed in the actual Wikipedia article. GrayDuck156 (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

2011 peer-reviewed studies: No Consensus

No consensus on the safety of GM food: 2011 peer-reviewed study of research from peer-reviewed journals finds that roughly half of the animal feeding studies conducted in recent years showed there is cause for concern. Researchers noted,

"Diverse groups including consumers and environmental Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) have suggested that all GM foods/plants should be subjected to long-term animal feeding studies before approval for human consumption. In 2000 and 2006, we reviewed the information published in international scientific journals, noting that the number of references concerning human and animal toxicological/health risks studies on GM foods/plants was very limited. The main goal of the present review was to assess the current state-of-the-art regarding the potential adverse effects/safety assessment of GM plants for human consumption. The number of citations found in databases (PubMed and Scopus) has dramatically increased since 2006. However, new information on products such as potatoes, cucumber, peas or tomatoes, among others was not available. Corn/maize, rice, and soybeans were included in the present review. An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants." petrarchan47คุก 05:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I see this is mentioned above. (Redacted). petrarchan47คุก 05:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

As soon as the scientific bodies of national and international standing that note the consensus, adopt a changed view based on this one paper, then we will change our article. Not until then, of course. Guy (Help!)

I wouldn't expect any changes based on this one review, not in our article nor by major scientific bodies - just as Jytdog uses 18 references to make a point, so too can we show the lack of consensus by acknowledging conclusions from multiple reviews. petrarchan47คุก 21:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"Diverse groups including consumers and environmental Non Governmental Organizations..." We're looking for peer-reviewed science, not activists (on either side.) Lfstevens (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet another review from 2011 finds no safety consensus:

"Many scientific data indicate that animals fed by GM crops have been harmed or even died. Rats exposed to transgenic potatoes or soya had abnormal young sperm; cows, goats, buffalo, pigs and other livestock grazing on Bt-maize, GM cottonseed and certain biotech corn showed complications including early deliveries, abortions, infertility and also many died (26–30). However, this is a controversial subject as studies conducted by company producing the biotech crops did not show any negative effects of GM crops on mice (31). Although Agri-biotech companies do not accept the direct link between the GMFs consumption and human health problems, there are some examples given by the opponents. For example: The foodborne diseases such as soya allergies have increased over the past 10 years in USA and UK (32) and an epidemic of Morgellons disease in the US (33). There are also reports on hundreds of villagers and cotton handlers who developed skin allergy in India (34, 35). Recent studies have revealed that Bacillus thuringiensis corn expresses an allergenic protein which alters overall immunological reactions in the body (36, 37)."

"The aforementioned reports performed by independent GM researchers have lead to a concern about the risks of GMFs and the inherent risks associated with the genetic technology."

"At the present there is no peer-reviewed publication on clinical studies of GMF effects on human health."

"Current testing methods being used in bio-tech companies appear to be inadequate. For instance, only chemical analysis of some nutrients are reported and generally consider the GM crops equal to its conventional crops when no major differences are detected between the compound compositions in both products. Such approach is argued to guarantee that the GM crop is safe enough to be patented and commercially produced." petrarchan47คุก 02:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The above article is a poorly written mess. I don't think it is suitable for our use. Lfstevens (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• The "Avicenna J Med Biotechnol". OK. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you see as a problem? http://www.ajmb.org/En/About.aspx petrarchan47คุก 03:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We are not discussing whether there is a consensus about GM foods being safe, but whether there is a consensus about them being as safe as their conventional counterparts. This entire section is irrelevant to the RFC. We already have the AAAS stating:

Moreover, the AAAS Board said, 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.”

The AAAS comment was not peer-reviewed, makes false statements about the WHO and, given that it's merely a statement from the BoD and not an actual review, it should be questioned for bias. It was released one week before California's labeling vote, and AAAS Board member Nina Federoff was a previous board member of a biotech company with a stake in the vote. Finally, given that the GM foods of concern on the market have been around for less than 20 years, it seems premature to express a consensus on safety. Cancer can take years to develop, and the effects of GM food will be difficult to unravel. But aside from how lack of consensus is logical, given the lack of studies and the time needed to see effects, there are reliable sources that say there is no consensus. The United Nations and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, for one. And Domingo, who actually did a review of health studies examining GM food. 66.169.76.198 (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that we do not understand the risks associated with either conventional or genetically modified food, the purpose here is to discuss whether that risk is comparable to conventional foods, which we already have sources attesting to there being such a consensus.TypingAway (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you've been around Wikipedia for only a few weeks, so I'll cut you some slack, but no - what we are discussing is whether sources support the claims WP is making. "The purpose here is to discuss whether that risk is comparable to conventional foods" - totally wrong. We let the researchers do this, and then refer to RS (and in this case, MEDRS) and simply summarize it. We are looking at a variety of recent, peer reviewed papers in an attempt to see whether our presentation gives the reader a neutral and accurate view of the science to date. petrarchan47คุก 06:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

To address this, why not change the sentence to: "Although there is limited research on the health effects^ of genetically modified food, with about half of those studies suggesting potentially adverse effects, the scientific consensus expressed by the AAAS is that GM food is as safe to consume as non-GM food, while the UN Environmental Programme disagrees that such consensus exists^^."

^So stop pointing to papers that review environmental effects, please; check before you post

^^Still feeling like my repeated calls to check the UN and Association of Nutrition and Dietetics publications have been ignored

ALL solved! You're welcome, for that beautiful work of editing.66.169.76.198 (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Still a bit problematic, in that it gives a lot more weight to dissent than is evident in the real world. For example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24041244 surveyed over 1,700 publications and found "The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops". You also have the EU, NAS, Royal Society and many other national bodies noting that there is no credible evidence of harm, whereas those claiming harm alost all lead with Seralini, a paper already retracted once and authored by someone with a documented anti-GMO bias who set out to prove that GMOs are dangerous - a clear red flag. After 30 years with zero provable adverse effects, "teach the controversy" is looking rather thin. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'll chime in a bit more later, but I highly suggest folks read this from the climate change side of things as an interesting parallel. It's an extremely common tactic for fringe advocates to cry no consensus when they are taking advantage of most people's misconceptions on what scientific consensus means by citing just a single or handful of sources making their preferred claim. It's also common for such advocates to go with a moving goalpost fallacy and claim there's only limited research because X hasn't been studied yet, when the consensus side just doesn't consider the ideal relevant and doesn't give it mention in the first place. I'm seeing some of those mistakes being made in this conversation, so do remember that competence is required in the topic if someone wants to discuss scientific consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: "competence is required in the topic if someone wants to discuss scientific consensus" Since we don't engage in original research, and our goal is to produce content that is readable and easily verifiable by a reasonably educated English-literate general reader, how much "competence" is required to check a statement in Wikipedia's voice, against its cited source? In the case of scientific and academic consensus, our rules seem quite clear: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." (WP:RS/AC). If we want to write "broad scientific consensus," literally in those words, we need at least one reliable, independent source that says that, or something very close that I will be able to recognize when I read it. Perhaps I'm not competent to comment here, though, you tell me! --Tsavage (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why original research is being mentioned, but competence in understanding what scientific consensus is would mean that someone would not make the statement that there isn't consensus (as in the header of the section) by citing a single paper or a handful of selected ones (i.e., consensus is not unanimity). The same problem happens with climate changes deniers that cite published papers touting the fringe view claiming there is no consensus, when in reality there actually is consensus when you look at the 99% of papers/scientists out there. It's a confusing topic for non-scientists, so that's all that note was about (not intended to single anyone out) to make sure people check what consensus actually means. We can't engage in a tit for tat X said there is consensus, Y said there isn't from a WP:WEIGHT perspective with that in mind.

You misunderstood the section title, it was a reference to the findings of the papers. Above this section we have papers which are said to support the consensus statement, and I am adding reviews that say otherwise, in their own appropriately titled sections, for clarity. I know one thing about true scientists, they like to look at all sides of an issue. I'm trying to help with that for purposes of NPOV and for our readers. petrarchan47คุก 00:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC) See also, first two "Statements" at WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. petrarchan47คุก 00:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: I understand your intention to say not in so many words that some editors don't seem to understand that scientific consensus simply means most agree. I mentioned original research, because competence is required to evaluate scientific material and draw conclusions, but it is not required to find a source that actually says, "broad consensus"; reliability of the source can be determined after that. You're pointing out undue weight, but isn't this the problem all around: we have a bunch of sources - a mix of studies, announcements by organizations, scientific opinion pieces, even a newspaper article - that seem to add up to a majority conclusion, but apparently no solid independent source actually says there is consensus, yet there is a determination by some editors to make this collection of sources say that in those sweeping words and none other. So maybe you could call it...tit for tat, whatever, there are other sources of varying weight that together indicate no consensus. What's the difference, with 18 sources, which are we weighing against what? In the end:"Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." --Tsavage (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The parallel is that a review study says there is no consensus on GMO safety while review studies say there is a consensus on climate change. TFD (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What I was mentioning above is that similar publications also claim there is no consensus on climate change, but are regarded as fringe viewpoints in the scientific discourse even though the paper was published. We're basically seeing the same thing in this topic basically as a strawman that scientific consensus only means you won't find someone saying otherwise and a single paper can refute the consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not the intention (after all, there's so much text to sort through here), but when the pro-consensus folks in this discussion continue to suggest that only fringe sources disagree about consensus, and continue to ignore the major sources pointed out by myself and others, it makes me feel like you all are ignoring these sources on purpose. Among those sources are: 1) The United Nations Environmental Programme Report, linked at bottom of page 2) The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations report 3)The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (someone else linked elsewhere) 4)The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics report, linked at bottom of page and, of course, the fact that 5) Domingo's study is the only review to summarize studies on the health impacts of GM food 66.169.76.198 (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Also ignored is a quotation from a source used to support the "consensus", which Sarah SV points out above:

• "Part of the WHO's statement could be included in the paragraph as it's more nuanced and represents something other than the US/UK view. The WHO says:

  Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

petrarchan47คุก 00:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one could claim that statement is ignored as they pretty much entirely reflects the current language. The whole reason why we cannot say all GM food is safe is because you technically need to assess each one as it comes down the pipeline. When you consider the entirely quote in context you provided rather than just the bolded part, nothing is being ignored. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, no "similar publications also claim there is no consensus on climate change." All review studies on climate change - every single one - say that there is consensus on climate change. However, the only review studies on GMO say that there is no consensus that GMO is safe. So we have reliable sources saying there is consensus on climate change and saying there is no consensus on GMO safety. Contrary to what Jytdog says, I am not a "true believer", I just want to accurately represent what reliable sources say. I accept that the peer-reviewed review studies of GMO safety may be wrong, but I need sources to support your view. I will say to you what I say to climate change deniers - please provide a review study that supports your view. TFD (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is that even a handful of what we consider "reliable" sources in the sense of reviews can still be considered fringe when dealing with statements of academic consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on second glance it looks like folks were in the middle of a discussion at least about the UN source when TFD first brought it up, before I joined in and possibly cut that conversation short. My apologies there! (like I said, a lot of text...) If that approach to the conversation seemed productive to you all, I hope it continues; it looks like you might need to tap on someone more authoritative on the policies you were all discussing though? 66.169.76.198 (talk) 8:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.62.166 (talk)

2012 review: no safety consensus, risks acknowledged

PMC 3791249A . S. Bawa, K. R. Anilakumar petrarchan47คุก 07:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Impact factor 1.123. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sources older than 5 years

I went through the sources and found quite a few that were older than 5 years. Per WP:MEDDATE we should be using sources that are done within the last 5 years. There appears to be plenty of newer sources in the list I added to the bottom of the the quotes section that the older ones should be removed. AlbinoFerret 21:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

the really basic food safety questions here are not "hot" in mainstream science, Albino. No new science has arisen - no new analytical technique that lets us detect things at a finer level, no actual science that calls the toxicity studies that have been done into real question, no new potential mechanism for toxicity .. the real world, mainstream science and regulation is still rolling along, outside of all the GMO activist drama. The only thing that is really interesting from a scientific perspective, are results of a well-conducted long term animal feeding study, which of course any scientist worth his or her salt wants to see the results of. The EU Grace Project is working on that. So MEDDATE is not a big deal here. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There are sources being used from 2003 to 2013. The references from 2010 up should be plenty. Removing the older ones goes right along with MEDRS which MEDDATE is a section of, are you suggesting that MEDRS not be followed? AlbinoFerret 04:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not move them to a subpage that is then linked from within one of the references? That could also address the objections that too many sources are being cited. Sunrise (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Because they are really not needed, one claim has 10 citations, only 1 is really needed to verify a claim. The newer sources make the same claim, why are we holding on to older sources in this case? Id really like to see a reason why they are necessary other than I just like it or I don't like them being removed. AlbinoFerret 14:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a lot more complicated than that. We use multiple citations all the time; among other things, they help us to establish weight. WP:CITEKILL (as discussed below) has a couple of examples of when it's reasonable to include citations that would be excessive in other contexts. It's especially common for situations like this one, where we have many high-quality sources which are disputed by many lower-quality sources. Ideally we wouldn't need multiple citation at all, but I doubt that removing it entirely will be possible until this article reaches FA-level quality. Of course, I'm speaking generally in this comment, since the single/multiple citation issue that you refer to doesn't address the question of which citations to include; and switching to single citation isn't the change you were proposing in any case. Sunrise (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The categorization of sources compiled thus far is innacurate. Some of the sources used to claim consensus don't meet MEDRS standards by a long shot (Washington Post article), while strong sources that don't support the desired claim are being blatantly ignored. petrarchan47คุก 09:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Washington Post article should be removed. That said, just at first glance at the list you linked, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is an organization of nonscientists and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is an international agreement, so neither of them are relevant for the sourcing of scientific facts. Sunrise (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• The two of us have gone back and forth a lot about WP:MEDRS, an overbearing guideline that I would enjoy seeing deleted in its entirety - especially around archive 6 or so. You've put in a lot of effort lobbying in favor of it much more restrictive than I want, but, it still does not actually say that reviews older than five years should be deleted. It advises editors to "look for" reviews newer than five years and says that newer reviews should be preferred to older primary sources. I want Wikipedia to use reliable up to date information as feasible, but I don't want arbitrary cutoffs narrowing the depth of information that we provide. I have read biological articles more than a century old that are still accurate and meaningful. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The situation is not that I suggest cutting out sources leaving none, or few. But there is an over abundance of sources in this case. One claim having 10. This is not needed. We should be removing older sources that are really not needed, bringing the article more up to date. By that I am not recommending only the newest sources, but within 5 years is a good rule of thumb. All it takes is one source for any claim. Holding on to 12 year old sources is not necessary and lowers the quality of the claim imho. What sources do you think really need to stay? How many of the older sources make claims that the newer ones dont? AlbinoFerret 13:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Reading some of the comments on this page you might have some sense of the fierceness of anti-GMO advocates. It useful to have the references showing the breadth of the consensus, and there is no policy (or even guideline) that I am aware of, that forbids this. (if there is, please bring it). So you appear to be arguing for a preference. And one that would leave editors working there in a bad situation of having POV-pushers playing the "duelling reference" game over something that has been settled in mainstream science for about a lomg time now. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a mistreatment, WP:MEDDATE is a guideline that specifically addresses this. So far I see no policy that speaks to keeping sources that are up to 12 years old when there is an over abundance of them. I have no strong opinions on the GMO battle. But I do have a policy based argument, whereas all I have got back on keeping them can be summed up as "I like keeping them because of an argument someone else may make". Please provided a policy or guideline that negates WP:MEDDATE or one that says stockpile old sources on a page to win arguments. AlbinoFerret

Looks like a misunderstanding of intent of MEDDATE. It is to make sure we are up to date with the most currently cycle of reviews, organization statements, etc. It doesn't mean sources older than 5 years must be removed as Wnt mentioned. There's a differences between MEDDATE for a single old source with a passing mention in determining weight for a single idea (the background you're probably more familiar with) and academic consensus.

If your concern is MEDDATE, what new sources are you going to use to replace the slightly older ones? Generally, we do not consider consensus statements dated or defunct until an equivalent update comes along that shows a change in thinking. That is because once something is pretty solidly confirmed at this level, it tends not to be mentioned in the scientific literature as much because scientists move on to other topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please address why 10 sources, half over 5 years old are needed to reference one claim and should not be removed. Why do not 5 suffice? What is the reason for keeping the older ones that require them? Why is this not WP:CITEOVERKILL AlbinoFerret 15:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

no one said anything about "needed". citeoverkill is an essay. i have no idea how much consensus it has but i have never seen it before. you made it clear that you don't like it; i have explained why it is useful. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this just about that one statement in the beginning about "the broad scientific consensus"? Think that justifies the bundle of citations. Newer is preferred, but it's about broad consensus. Removing without replacing or arbitrarily cutting in half doesn't seem to enhance the point. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: To my understanding, essays by definition are not rated for level of consensus (it says so at the top of each one), but they can and are nominated for deletion if they contain information that is contrary to our general goals and methods, so existence is some measure of value. IMO, a good rule of thumb for additionally assessing value is whether an essay has been linked to from a higher level of guidance, such as a policy or guideline (I'm not sure whether all essays are so linked, or not). WP:CITEOVERKILL is linked to for further information from WP:BUNDLE, which is a section of the "Citing sources" guideline WP:CITE, concerning more than two or three citations.

CITEOVERKILL discusses unusual cases where more than three citations may be justified: "If there is a good reason to keep multiple citations, for example, to avoid perennial edit warring or because the sources offer a range of beneficial information, clutter may be avoided by merging the citations into a single footnote." This suggests that, if the purpose of 18 or however many sources is to "avoid perennial edit warring," a clear case of such edit warring should be evident AND, in this case, where a summary statement is being supported, each of those sources should on its own directly support the statement, per WP:RS/AC. If that is so, all but one or two should be merged into a single footnote, leaving only two or three inline references at most. At least, that's how I interpret that essay, which seems like a reasonable and common sense approach to assuring readability and relatively easy verifiability, and is what I was originally questioning as well, the long list of citations. Meanwhile, whether each source supports the conclusion is what seems in large part to be under discussion here. --Tsavage (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I see a bit over 100 references for this article, which I would call "just getting started". I mean, Final Fantasy (which is at the center of a web of about ten front page featured ads, so can be counted as perhaps what Wikipedia regards as its quintessential article of all time) has over 250 references, and that's not as controversial, broad, nor technical a topic. Wnt (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Raw numbers don't account for the fact that much is being kept out. This article is being kept stubbed so as not to have to reveal too much about this extraordinarily controversial topic. For instance, a simple mention of the % of Americans who favor GMO-labeling was kept out of the controversy section even though labeling was the topic. As well, the USDA's mention last month that they are creating a GMO-free label was also removed (both for bogus reasoning). petrarchan47คุก 23:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt: The better comparison would be, if Final Fantasy were referenced the way the statement in question here is, with around 18 sources per item it would have over 4,000 sources, and in the same way, this article would have around 1,800. That surely is not reasonable, accessible verifiability for a general encycopedia reader. Anything over 2-3 sources increasingly calls the item into question (why so many?), and also makes it more difficult for a reader to verify - 18 is way past over the top. --Tsavage (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tsavage: I think it should be clear that a statement about what the overall range of scientific opinion is on a contentious issue will have a larger number of references. It is not representative of this or any other article. Trying to weigh and average how many references are allowed for X lines of text is a very bad way to write. Even apart from that, I have favored above adding some text which somewhat dilutes the reference per text ratio, and I can certainly picture adding more text to further explain what is said in this paragraph. Wnt (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt: I agree with you, it does seem reasonable at times to have a larger number of citations to support a contentious statement: "Here is a reliable source for this, and if you don't believe that, here are 17 more that all say the same thing." Each source should independently agree. The discussion here centers on "broad scientific consensus" (BSC), a phrase repeated in other GM food articles as well, and far too sweeping for the situation. The 18 or so sources here do not each individually support BSC, and I'm not sure even one of them does (in an earlier comment, I mentioned that AAAS seemed like good support, but on better examination, even that seems questionable). I got involved (in the previous thread) simply questioning the large number of citations, not the validity of the sources or statement. Now, having participated here, I am critical of the BSC statement, and can't see how it meets the reasonable and explicit WP:RS/AC. I think we can easily convey that a huge amount of testing and monitoring has not indicated a case where eating GM food has been shown to harm anyone and related points, using other, more informative language. Also, thanks for your comments throughout, I think they are practical and in the spirit of working out the best content possible! --Tsavage (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Personally, I would say that I am strongly pro-GMO and anti-GMO, much as I am all for a farm combine when it means I buy cheap food but rather against it when someone is trying to run me down with it in a field. So if the antis are trying to get away with something by pushing hypothetical concerns that GMOs might be unsafe to eat, you are also trying to get away with something by pushing for the article only to cover the absence of known problems rather than the potential for unknown problems. This article seems to avoid considering whether a GMO produced for non-food purposes is a GM food, to the extent that the Starlink corn recall is mentioned only in the See Also section; there is also a section that states that animals fed GM foods are indistinguishable from others, despite the example of canola fish oil that I mentioned above. The philosophical problem though is that if the article would recognize that GM foods include food for animals and "pharming" that is not permitted to be sold for human consumption, then necessarily it must acknowledge that there are GM foods that are widely regarded to be unsafe (or more accurately, potentially unsafe) - which trumps your claim of scientific consensus on the narrower issue. Wnt (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, I suggest opening a new thread on public perception and the removed material on GMO labeling. It is outside of the bounds of this RFC, but relevant to the article, and worthy of more thorough discussion. The archives only have a few brief discussions of the subject, the most relevant being 1 and 2. Dialectric (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

public perception is well-covered in the top-most section GM food controversies article, here. this article is about GM food per se. Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Spinoff daughter articles should be used to handle subtopics in more detail, and shouldn't be used to remove practically all of the material from where it is directly relevant, to a different location - a comprehensive summary version of the most relevant material from daughter articles should be in the parent article. Currently, in this article, there is no real coverage of public perception, only a three-paragraph "Controversies" section, with one of those paragraphs mostly devoted to stating that there is broad scientific consensus that GM food is safe, and explaining how testing is done (no apparent reason why it's in that section). IMO, that 67% of the adult US population does not believe that scientists understand the risks of GM food[23], and the issue of the huge perception gap between public and science, seems to be directly about this subject, and should be here. --Tsavage (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a difference between "GE no riskier than conventional breeding" and "GM food no riskier than conventional food"?

Any consensus equivalence seems to be for "genetic engineering of food crops is no riskier than conventional breeding of food crops." The first two sources state:

• "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" - AAAS
• "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies" - European Commission

We are looking for confirmation that there is a "broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." Those two sources state that GMOs are not inherently more likely to be harmful than conventionally bred crops: there is no reason to expect that risk of unintended harm is any greater in GMOs. That does not seem to reach "broad scientific consensus" that the actual risk is the same for every food on the market. A conventional hybrid crop could be harmful, and so could a GM crop, but not just because it is GM - I could therefore possibly conclude that all currently available foods are equally safe, but that is my conclusion, not what is explicitly stated in these sources.

• The only source that actually says, "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat," is the third listed, by Pamela Ronald. We look for independent sources, ones likely to display objectivity; bias is not a reason to discount a source, however, a strong interest in promoting a particular point of view has to be weighed against the information being used. Ronald, a plant geneticist specializing in GM rice, is an active, public advocate for GE of food - "Ronald explained that her advocacy of G.M.O.s is deeply tied to her opposition to the use of harmful chemicals in agriculture"[24] - speaking, writing, and debating from the "proGMO" position (e.g. "Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food," a recent TED Talk). Her conclusion is an expert's opinion, not a systematic review of scientific literature, and as such would seem to be best used (for neutrality) as a quote with in-text attribution, not as a main source for turning Ronald's statement into a summary statement in Wikipedia's voice.

These points have already been mentioned to some degree in different places in this RfC, putting them all in one place seems helpful. --Tsavage (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The full context of the EC quote is: "It is evident from this grouping that many of the research projects have been launched to address not only the scientific unknowns but, more importantly, public concerns about the potential environmental impact of GMOs, about food safety, the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops, and risk assessment strategies..... The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research,and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." So the answer to the question in your subject header, is no. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: If you imagine for a minute that we're not on opposing sides of something, instead, trying to work out the most, accurate and verifiable content, please follow my reasoning of the facts:

1) The three most current main supports for the current RfC statement, that "eating available GM foods is as safe as eating conventional foods," are AAAS[25], EC/EU[26], and Ronald[27], in that they come closest to "broad scientific consensus" or equivalent wording (per WP:RS/AC).

2) Of the three, the only report that explicitly considers a large body of scientific material is the EC/EU report, broadly looking at a total of 25 years of EU-funded research (the publication, "A decaded of EU-funded research," specifically only covers the more recent 10 years, 2001-2010). The relevant section explains that the latest 50 research projects (2001-2010) can be grouped into four areas: environmental impact, food safety, emerging technologies (biofuels, biomaterials), and risk assessment (policies and communication). So, a certain amount of EU-funded research in the last decade was directed specifically at food safety.

3) In light of the total of 25 years of EU-funded research, and the various newly emerged research subcategories (environmental impact, food safety, etc), the EC/EU report says the main conclusion is that "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." To paraphrase, "of all the human methods of plant modification, genetic engineering has not proven to be inherently riskier a method than any other."

4) The AAAS document, "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods," is a position piece opposing mandatory labeling legislation in the US. Its main argument is presented in the first three sentences:

"There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe." Here again, the statement is that GE in itself has not proven to introduce additional risk to plant modification, the risk is at most equivalent to all other modification methods, which we assume to be "safe."

5) The AAAS document creates a stronger link betweem genetic modification and actual food by reinterpreting the same EC/EU report. For effect, they have combined the EU research summary with broad, semi-specific reference to other organizations' findings, to construct a somewhat ambiguous restatement of their own: it paraphrases the EC/EU statement which it quotes in an interestingly worded way, in effect saying, "all the most respected organizations agree, if we made equivalent foods by GE and by conventional breeding methods, the risks would be the same." This is then an echo of the EC/EU statement. The entire paragraph that includes the AAAS statement referenced here is:

"The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” 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."

6) Given the analysis in 5), the AAAS statement should perhaps not be treated as an independent source in this context, and used instead as an in-text attributed quote, with context made explicit, such as the title of the statement, or, "in a statement opposing mandatory GMO labeling, the AAS concluded..."

6) The Ronald document is from a respected plant geneticist, specializing in GM rice, who is also an outspoken GM advocate, engaging in high profile public debates, making presentations, and writing books and online content. The source article appears in a scientific journal, but is not a systematic review of literature, it is an expert's overview of genetic engineering in agriculture, with some broad citations. Ronald is therefore not independent of the subject when editorializing professionally, therefore, this material should be attributed in-text, not cited as an independent source. Further, her safety reasoning still concludes:

"These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment."

7) All three main sources, then, only explicitly agree that genetic engineering does not appear to introduce additional risk to plant modification than conventional methods. This does not take into account the actual modification efforts made in GM and in conventional crops. For example, have modifications been done to GM crops that currently could not be done using conventional methods - does substantial equivalence testing fully cover "exotic" situations? The conclusion that currently available foods are all equally safe is therefore a compound conclusion, looking at the substantial equivalence of GM and conventional breeding, the food safety record so far (no reported harm), and the effectiveness of regulation and oversight. No reliable independent source actually states that explicitly.

8) Considering the nature of the term "broad scientific consensus," with a controversial subject like this, we should be extremely careful with its use, and probably avoid it. There is never a situation where that is the only, or even "the best," way to convey general scientific agreement. From our own scientific consensus article:

"In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy."

9) We have to consider general readers' concerns with GM. GM results may be substantially equivalent to other methods, but it seems to be able to more easily produce more novel actual combinations than conventional breeding; what is the practical effect of combining the profit motivation with a more powerful breeding tool, how do we know what's really going on? Also, conventional breeding is being technologically pushed to be faster, therefore more powerful, so a major underlying question is: Is the current application of plant modification methods of any sort "safe"? We should be striving to write an article that doesn't present synthetic "facts" (in terms of what they represent, not WP:SYNTH), like scientific consensus at any one time, outside of useful, practical context from the general reader's point of view.

IMO, we should do away with the "broad scientific consensus" statement, and state the "general agreement" material with more detail, covering the concept of substantial equivalence, the safety testing and absence of harm reports to date, and the general regulatory framework, all in succinct, summary form, using attributed quotes as necessary. This is certainly doable. That's my argument, after having followed this interesting and somewhat complicated RfC. Hope I didn't waste anyone's time who read all this! :) --Tsavage (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

the answer to your subject question remains no. you are splitting hairs. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Questioning sources is not splitting hairs. You're pushing for a controversial blanket statement that is only anywhere nearly supported (i.e. not supported) by non-independent sources writing specifically in favor of GM food. I'm not sure why you're insisting on this loaded phrase, "broad scientific consensus," if not to promote that position. It's a pronouncement that doesn't explain anything to readers, and the sources aren't there to support it, not per WP:RS/AC. And there are other ways to convey the information in the cited sources. Furthermore, explain how AAAS and Ronald are independent sources for the material cited here. Apart from the fact that saying genetic engineering is in and of itself no riskier as a way to modify food than any other method, is not saying that all food is safe. All the sources may seem to add up to a general agreement, but there are no reliable independent sources that actually say that, which is the whole point of verifiability. --Tsavage (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog's point that this is hairsplitting. It is almost getting to the point of misrepresenting the sources. I'm seeing most of your discussion here being matters of personal opinion for opposition to the non-controversial consensus sentiment (at least in the scientific realm). To answer the title of this section, there is not a difference between the two. Food is the product of the breeding process. You evaluate the safety of a breeding process by evaluating the food. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"As safe as" = "as risky as". Each product on the market has been through case-by-case regulatory review; the speculation about possible GM food that you and others engage in, has nothing to do with actual marketed GM food. The scientific consensus on this is clear. there are lots of people with axes to grind. that doesn't change the scientific consensus. Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: "It is almost getting to the point of misrepresenting the sources. I'm seeing most of your discussion here being matters of personal opinion" Please stop with hinting at personal accusations. If you think I'm misrepresenting sources, say it, it's all there to review. What does "almost getting to the point" mean? It is insulting for you to characterize my clearly presented questioning of sources and wording as mostly "personal opinion". If there is "broad scientific consensus," why isn't that unambiguously stated so we can source it and, no argument. I understand the vague unspoken nature of "consensus" within the realm, but that's why various bodies present public statements, and none of those statements have directly said what you want them to. All we have is that there is no inherent greater risk from genetic engineering than from conventional breeding. You can combine that with the food safety record, and the regulatory oversight record, and come to your own personal scientist's consensus conclusion, but we need that in writing for content. WP:RS/AC is quite clear. If I'm wrong about what the sources say, please prove it. --Tsavage (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: "Each product on the market has been through case-by-case regulatory review" If you had a source that actually said "broad scientific consensus that eating GM is no riskier than eating conventional," then you wouldn't need to be explaining how each product has been through regulatory review. "As safe as" = "as risky as" refers explicitly to the methods of crop modification, not the "currently marketed food," whatever exactly that is defined as. --Tsavage (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I have replied to those issues elsewhere. b/n you and grayduck filling this RfC with walls of text it has become impossible to follow, so i understand why you can't find my respond to all these things. you have each made it very clear that you oppose and what your reasons are... although with the walls of text whatever it is that you wanted to say (other than "oppose"), will be lost on any closer. Jytdog (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Notices

Notices posted in the following places:

• Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#RfC_on_consensus_statement_of_relative_safety_of_currently_marketed_GM_food
• Talk:Genetically_modified_crops#RfC_on_consensus_statement_of_relative_safety_of_currently_marketed_GM_food
• Talk:Genetic_engineering#RfC_on_consensus_statement_of_relative_safety_of_currently_marketed_GM_food
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#RfC_on_consensus_statement_of_relative_safety_of_currently_marketed_GM_food
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink#RfC_on_consensus_statement_of_relative_safety_of_currently_marketed_GM_food
• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#RfC_on_consensus_statement_of_relative_safety_of_currently_marketed_GM_food
• WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#RfC_on_consensus_statement_of_relative_safety_of_currently_marketed_GM_food since issues of WP:SYN were raised
• WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#RfC_on_consensus_statement_of_relative_safety_of_currently_marketed_GM_food

Definition of genetically modified food and the role of this article

I think that the debate on the relevance of potential risks has something to do with the definition of "genetically modified food" itself. We have an article on Genetically modified crops. Other genetically modified organisms may be used as foods. The definition used in the article is "foods produced from organisms that have had specific changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering." As such, it sounds like the strain responsible for the Starlink corn recall is a genetically modified food, because it entered the food supply; but it is possible some here are thinking it's not a food, because it was not certified to be sold as food. This article currently mentions it in the See Also section only. I would think that GM crops that are not licensed for use as food, such as Starlink or pharming crops, would be generally regarded as not (necessarily or demonstrably) safe for human consumption. This would mean that any statement that GM foods are safe needs to be qualified (licensed GM foods, etc.). On the other hand, if people are suggesting that GM foods only includes those things that are sold legitimately as food, that needs to be explained up front in the definition. Wnt (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It was developed for animal and human consumption, but not approved. I do not see that it is irrelevant to the article. TFD (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Public Perception

The article currently makes no mention of public perception of GMO foods. This issue was raised above in the RFC discusssion, but since it doesn't directly apply to the rfc, I've started a separate discussion. A few past discussions on this issue have been brief: 1 and 2.

There are a number of references that cover public perception, but they have not been included in the article. Jytdog commented above on this, writing "public perception is well-covered in the top-most section GM food controversies article, here. this article is about GM food per se." But I do not see this as a clear distinction. The Organic food article has mentions of public perception. A number of other articles on controversial subjects integrate discussion of public perception into the main article. Perception is not in itself a controversy, simply a presentation of statistics. I think at a minimum there should be a brief mention in this article. Dialectric (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

there are many MANY things related to the controversy over GM foods that we could include in this article. Most of them end up bleeding over into other issues that are not about food per (environment, the relationship with other elements of intensive agriculture), IP rights (that are really about crops not food per se).. all the things we cover in the controversies article, regulation, labelling etc etc. Back in 2012-ish any article about related to GMOs had a disparate mash of all those issues, and there was almost no clear discussion of (starting from the bottom up

a) what is genetic engineering exactly?

b) what is a GMO and what organisms have been modified and why? ;

c) what are the actual GM crops that are used to produce food, how are they modified, where are they grown, etc;

d) what actual foods are there, that come from GM crops or other organisms (what the heck is GM food?)

e) what is the global regulatory scene on GMOs, so regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms

f) finally, what are all the controversies (GM food controversies) which touch on all of the above, often several at the same time?

each of the articles in a) - d) has a SUMMARY stub that leads to the articles in e) and f). This structure has kept the articles well-organized and clear. I am open to re-organizing them but it should be done thoughtfully so we don't end up with all the controversies bleeding all over everything, and thickets of conflicting/contradictory/unevenly updated content across all the articles. Very open to other ideas of how to meta-edit this suite of articles. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As Tsavage wisely notes above,

Spinoff daughter articles should be used to handle subtopics in more detail, and shouldn't be used to remove practically all of the material from where it is directly relevant, to a different location - a comprehensive summary version of the most relevant material from daughter articles should be in the parent article. Currently, in this article, there is no real coverage of public perception, only a three-paragraph "Controversies" section, with one of those paragraphs mostly devoted to stating that there is broad scientific consensus that GM food is safe, and explaining how testing is done (no apparent reason why it's in that section). IMO, that 67% of the adult US population does not believe that scientists understand the risks of GM food[28], and the issue of the huge perception gap between public and science, seems to be directly about this subject, and should be here.

Basic guidelines such as WP:NPOV are being ignored, such as using much of the Controversy section to refute arguments from opposition, or not mentioning the arguments at all (a problem I tried to fix, but was reverted here with a highly dubious edit summary), and as Sarah SV writes in the RfC above, any nuance in the safety consensus argument that is noted by the reputable sources used to support the claim is ignored. Les Vegas gives further evidence for this here.

From past 'discussions' on the matter, I see that people at this talk page are making up rules out of thin air: There is constant temptation to add material to this article but such efforts often bring detail that doesn't rise to the Lead of the split articles and so shouldn't be here either.

My reverted edits 1 2 were meant to address the lack of basic information and updates, as well as the POV issue:

1) added mention of the USDA's announcement last month of their GM-free label program

2) added the reason labeling is considered controversial, explaining to the reader why it was mentioned in the Controversy section, by adding % of Americans favoring the idea of GM labels ("public perception")

3) moved the Safety Consensus statement, unchanged, into its own separate section in order to address the POV issue

There is no support in the guidelines for reverting my edit, except that I should have used this NYT article for #2. Unless I am mistaken, this article is not exempt from PAGs. petrarchan47คุก 23:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

the scope of any given article is determined by the consensus of the editors working on it. Like i said above, am open to discussion of other ways to keep the articles relatively organized and in WP:SYNC so they don't go all to thicket. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:YESPOV I am addressing the POV issue; what argument is being used to support including the Safety Consensus in the Controversy section? The two additions I made shouldn't be disallowed due to concerns about scope, as the labeling issue is roughly 1/4th of the section already. The problem is, it doesn't cover even the slightest hint as to why labeling is considered controversial. It is used as platform for the FDA's position and your unsupported consensus statement. petrarchan47คุก 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Objections?

If there are no policy-based objections to my (reverted) edit described above, I will reinstate the changes. Please add objection, reasoning, and any prior discussion if applicable below. petrarchan47คุก 19:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

article scope is something discussed and determined by consensus. you cannot change scope unilaterally. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm I'm thinking you didn't carefully read my reply above:

• Per WP:YESPOV I am addressing the POV issue; what argument is being used to support including the Safety Consensus in the Controversy section?
• Besides moving the Safety Consensus out of the Controversy section, the two additions I made shouldn't be disallowed due to concerns about scope, as the labeling issue is roughly 1/4th of the section already but it doesn't mention why labeling is seen as controversial. petrarchan47คุก 20:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, the section is currently a WP:SUMMARY of the controversies article, taken from its WP:EAD. Those topics are treated at length in that article. What is important, is keeping the articles in WP:SYNC. You haven't addressed how to re-arrange things, so that the articles hang together. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wildly inaccurate take. Please be aware that WP:NPOV and WP:RS are the prevailing guidelines, and NPOV it is not being met by a long shot. Can you justify (5th time i've asked) adding the Safety Consensus statement to the Controversies section? It reads as a rebuttal, which is expressly forbidden. This can be solved by moving it into its own section, unchanged. Do you have objections to that move? petrarchan47คุก 04:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Alrighty, so no policy-based objections have emerged. Do editors agree that the Safety Section should be moved out from "Controversies" into its own section, or is there a more appropriate position that adheres to NPOV? petrarchan47คุก 20:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This proposed approach turns editing into a labyrinthine nightmare. Remember, a fundamental Wikipedia principle is, editors should not need to read any rules in order to edit. This throws common sense editing out the window. You seem to be arguing that, once a daughter article is created, its lead controls the content in the parent article, the tail wags the dog. So rather than keep the higher level, presumably more important, more consulted article, in the best possible shape through direct editing, we have to edit the content of the daughter article, hope there is no objection to summarizing that content in the daughter article lead, and then sync that lead back to the section in the parent article. Frankly, this seems...preposterous for this subject area as it is now. --Tsavage (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO, WP:SUMMARY should only be applied loosely for now, and higher level articles like this one, and linked subtopics, should be edited separately, content not deleted simply based on SUMMARY, and then syncing can occur in both directions. That way, higher level articles are not left lacking, on the way to eventually reorganizing things more efficiently. --Tsavage (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if the consensus ends up with finding that "broad scientific consensus" is not what the sources say (I don't see there being an agreement on the issue on this talk page so far.), that wouldn't warrant completely removing the statements from the respected scientific organisations and studies that were used as reference for the claim, like the edit linked above did. If consensus turns out to be too strong a statement or not completely following what the sources say, the should at least be something like "numerous scientific bodies have stated that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." I think completely omitting this would make the article introduction seem biased against GM crops. Øln (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This edit did not touch the references to the safety statement, it simply moved the paragraph into a more neutral position within the article. You may be referring to a different edit? petrarchan47คุก 22:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I am telling you, the articles were a complete mess a few years ago, with thickets of content about the exact same ideas, sourced differently and saying different things, across all the articles, and almost all of it about the controversies instead of the subject matter. please propose a way to keep the articles organized and in SYNC. Neither of you are proposing anything to manage content across the articles. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. With many fringe ideas being pushed by those opposed to GMOs, we need to be careful about presenting controversy and legitimizing some arguments. In this case, we can't be spreading around different ideas to different sections even if we were going to disregard WP:SUMMARY. In terms of organization, food safety is largely a non-issue outside of controversy topic, so the controversy section and article seems to be the best home for it the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit in question. petrarchan47คุก 03:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So you admit this safety section is being used not to neutrally convey information, but to refute the "other side" - a side which isn't presented at all. I understand that there are folks engaged here who have strong passions about the topic, however as WP editors those have to be repressed in leiu of the guidelines. From WP:YESPOV

"Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight."

Arguments made thus far supporting a "GMOs are totally safe" statement in the middle of the controversy section are that this article used to be a mess, and that 'fringe ideas are being pushed by anti GMO editors', or that SYNC is the prevailing guideline. This does not make sense to me. It is shocking to hear people overtly defending the use of this carefully crafted safety claim as a prophylactic refutation of big bad meanies out there ready to ruin this article. I am also shocked at the amount of hoops one must jump through to even attempt to apply NPOV or to make an update (such as the USDA's new GMO labeling program) to this article. It feels as if there are owners of the article, but that they aren't playing by the same rules we wikpedians go by. I have been asking on this talk page for well over a week (in the WHO section as well as this one) whether there were policy based objections to my edit, and none came forth. Instead you let me go to the trouble and then revert me. This is disrespectful. Without the guidelines as our guide, I am truly at a loss. petrarchan47คุก 03:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I was refering to this edit, I didn't see that there was another one adding in the statement elsewhere, so ignore that. Having statements from respected scientific bodies in the controversies section makes sense as it's what the section is about. As for the other issue, I do think it makes sense to have a statement about perception in this section to guide the reader, as it is more widely covered in the linked Genetically modified food controversies article. It ought to be brief though, and not be too US-centric, maybe there are some meta-studies on perception out there?Øln (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: I disagree with your reversion, and your position. Obviously, a GM food article needs a food safety section. Your arguments supporting reversion are hard to follow:

• "we can't be spreading around different ideas to different sections" There is no template for this topic. Organizing information is what we do. The meaning of "spread around" in this context is unclear, is certain information supposed to be concentrated in a certain way or location?
• "food safety is largely a non-issue outside of controversy topic" GM food safety is a huge mainstream current issue. Asking and answering a simple question, "Is GM food safe?" is not "controversial." Content editing may become contentious, but the actual content of a food safety section is not "controversial." The controversy, the dispute, the disagreement, is the debate between opposing sides.

The suggestion here seems to be, don't put safety information under a logical heading for the reader, put it where it can fight FRINGE, which seems to reduce article quality, and is kind of bizarre. --Tsavage (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It is bad style to have controversies sections. Safety requires its own section and it can address any controversies. The same with all the other issues they arouse controversy. TFD (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

here is the article before we started working on the re-arrangements. That version of the article mooshes together GM crops, controversies, regulation, etc.... and there is no discussion of what GM food actually is. The current article explains very clearly what GM foods are. There was no separate article on GM crops at that time nor anything that explained how GM crops are used by farmers nor why. I am open to re-organizing things but it should be thoughtful. There has been a separate article on GM food controversies since 2007 with content that overlapped the other articles and wasn't SYNCed. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

How on earth did these sections even get in here? Some reorganization is needed.

Some people above seem to be interested in focusing on relevant material, so... what are these?

(from the TOC, when the evil Template:toclimit is removed)

   3.1.3.1 Milled
   3.1.3.2 Protein isolate
   3.1.3.3 Protein concentrate
   3.1.3.4 Flour
   3.1.3.5 Textured protein

Yes, we actually have a section on how soy flour is made. I'm not sure anybody noticed, but it doesn't say anything about GMOs - doesn't say, for example, whether any GM components of soy are concentrated in flour or removed by processing to flour. Why we have it at all is a mystery to me.

I think that we actually should go much further in reorganization - list all the GM crops according to what the modifications are (or perhaps why they were made), rather than whether you would classify the crop as a fruit or a vegetable (which as we should all know is not particularly scientific in the first place). So for example the papaya should not sit under a heading for fruit, but for pathogen-derived resistance (we should make that point somewhere).

I also want to see toclimit exterminated with prejudice - I don't think I've ever seen it used in a positive way, because its main effect is to conceal bad organization in an article, whether in terms of what is under what or what could be in a different article. Wnt (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these meta issues, Wnt. (I was so shocked by the POV at the beginning of the article, I hadn't read much farther or noticed any of this.) This needs a lot of work. petrarchan47คุก 02:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of subsections that don't even mention GMOs would be a straightforward and hopefully uncontroversial change. I support the removal of the toclimit, but I've never heard of it before this mention. More significant reorganization of the article is worth discussing, but I suggest waiting until the conclusion of the current RFC to go into this.Dialectric (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

to be clear, that soy section starts out saying how much soy is GM (it is a lot). The section then describes the various kinds of products that are made from soy, and what kinds of food they are used in. So the answer is that all of that is GMO. the soy protein extender found in a lot of fast food hamburger - GMO. etc etc. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

responding to wnt above, the way this is organized is meant to go from clearly recognizable thing that has the recombinant DNA and protein in it ("hey this whole papaya in my hand - this is GMO") to processed foods that still have cellular matter (protein/DNA) in them (flour or various soy protein products) to highly processed foods that have vanishingly small traces of protein/DNA (oils, starches, sugars). Then to foods made with recombinant proteins (cheese etc) or animals whose flesh grows from eating GMOs.. etc. So from most "pure" GMO thing to the farthest removed. This could be organized differently for sure, but the idea is to help people understand what food is actually from a GMO and how. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the sources need to connect GMO to the crops. TFD (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)