Talk:Genetically modified food

Template:WAP assignment

RfC on Sentence on “broad scientific consensus” of GMO food safety fails to achieve consensus: It is time to improve it.

The Request for Comment (RfC) here created by Jytdog for the purpose of reaffirming the findings of this previous RfC on the language and sourcing of the sentence of a “broad scientific consensus” of the safety of GMO food (found in numerous articles) has closed here . There is no longer a consensus supporting the sentence. The closer stated:

Should the sentence be removed? Or maybe modified (and if so, to what)? There is no clear consensus on any particular action....Some of the opposes in this discussion appear to agree with the substance of this section but feel that the wording of the one sentence is overly broad; they might support more nuanced statements. I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording

I would also like to note that the closer of the earlier RfC made a similar recommendation:

... it may be helpful to refer to to some of the literature reviews to represent alternative views on the matter with respect to due weight.

With these recommendations in mind, I have provided a new sentence in the article and below for discussion that I believe is more WP:NPOV than the original that failed to achieve consensus at the recent RfC. Because the sentence occurs at numerous articles:

• Genetically modified food controversies (Talk)
• Genetically modified food (Talk)
• Genetically modified crops(Talk)
• Genetically modified organism(Talk)
• Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (Talk)
• March Against Monsanto (Talk)
• The Non-GMO Project(Talk)

I suggest we continue to consolidate talk here at Talk:Genetically modified food. David Tornheim (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• This is my suggested revised sentence:

While GMO Proponents, such as the AAAS and AMA and Pamela Ronald claim there is a "scientific consensus" regarding the safety of GMO technology and GMO foods, published peer reviewed articles in scientific journals challenge this claim of a scientific “consensus” and report a lack of sufficient study of GMO safety.

David Tornheim (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

References

No consensus means that the status quo ante prevails (pending consensus for any changes, of course). Besides, the close mostly addresses the formulation and structure of the RfC, rather than the merits. With regards to this particular proposal, I would object on grounds of WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE, for reasons that have been discussed extensively above. There are also other neutrality violations such as the use of scare quotes and the implication that the AAAS and AMA are advocacy organizations. Sunrise (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That might apply if the statement of scientific consensus is verifiable, with the directly applicable guideline being WP:RS/AC. Jytdog hastily initiated the RfC during a discussion of sources, seeking decisive support for the statement, and the support is not there. Regardless of how ill-formed the RfC may have been, and how taxing to follow the discussion of 18 sources simultaneously, if there was a single definitive source unequivocally supporting the strong statement, it would have stood out. --Tsavage (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC wasn't necessary in the first place, especially since there was almost no chance it would result in a change to the article. That said, what you describe isn't how RfCs work, because if your arguments were agreed to be correct, then the RfC would have closed that way. You would need to provide new arguments that weren't already considered, or to appeal the closure. (Or claim the BLP exemption, but that one should be self-evident.) Sunrise (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

what you describe isn't how RfCs work - RfCs don't "work" in any particular way, they are "an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content." (WP:RFC) The results are what we use to assist us in finding collaborative solutions. Formal closure is explicitly recommended against except for contentious topics and where consensus is not obvious: here, formal closure was sought, and now we have it.

Finding a statement to be insufficiently sourced - unverifiable - is against policy and requires action, not inaction. The RfC unambiguously sought to establish consensus support for the broad scientific consensus statement: the statement was challenged, and failed to find consensus. All arguments for the statement, the 18 sources, were presented and considered. The burden of support is on those wishing to maintain challenged content. The question is one of interpretation of sources and wording, not of including or excluding material: with over 30 editors participating, no consensus was found for that wording. The simple and obvious remedy is to fix it. --Tsavage (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus in the RfC, not a consensus that the content was insufficiently sourced. Since we had consensus in the past for the content and sources, the burden is on the person wanting to make the change. If you want something "fixed", then propose a change. Do keep in mind though that many editors do not see an issue with the current version of the statement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A quotation from the author of the RfC might be relevant to this discussion: "[I]f there is no consensus then we have to rework the statement." GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

the closer has more authority than i. the closer also suggested we try to rework it. so that is what we should do. we need to work that out here. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The RfC closing notes end on the obvious, common sense course: "I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording." I've been pointing out the same thing throughout: recasting the statement would not exclude or obscure one iota of scientific evidence, and, properly written, would make the whole thing clearer. A blanket pronouncement of "broad scientific consensus" without explanation, for a publicly controversial topic like this, is ultimately not helpful to the reader. This attempt to maintain at all costs a specific wording that numerous editors, recently and through the Talk archives, do not agree with, is entirely against the fundamental policy-driven goal of collaborative editing. It is clearly time to reword.

As for the proposed version above, in my opinion, as a first step, it can be done differently, in a way that does not introduce new points of contention, namely, the dissenting scientific evidence, and the characterization of organizations as GMO proponents (the article needs to be revised; the food safety info in the lead should summarize a relevant section, where all views are set out in appropriate detail). Perhaps @Jytdog:, who is central to all of this, can do away with the "broad scientific consensus" phrase, and create for consideration an initial alternative to that particular statement. --Tsavage (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I prefer the term "consensus" since it's an easy way to describe a situation where dissent is possible. It does seem that the term has become politicized for this topic since the first RfC, and I'd be fine with simply removing it for that reason. The problem is, again, that I don't think that's what you have in mind, because most of the other possible wordings which are compliant with policy allow no possibility of dissent. Sunrise (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on what I gathered during the RfC, I don't think it is accurate to state in Wikipedia's voice that scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that all currently available GM food is as safe as conventional food. If we had a high quality review source that said that directly, fine. But we don't. And there's WP:RS/AC. We have sources that say something next to that, while the pro-consensus statement argument is that, well, they DO say that, if you know how to interpret them. Explaining the case for safety - no inherent greater risk in method; no documented cases of harm; regulatory oversight - rather than summarizing it in a sweeping statement seems a more informative and neutral way to go. --Tsavage (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS statements from expert organizations are ideal for these kind of statements. They're usually the ones that put out statements of consensus since scientists generally don't spend time spelling out that there is a consensus in papers. It's a bit of a moving goalpost to say we only stick with reviews in this context. We already have one review in the sources that were discussed the specifically says, "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat."[1]

If we’re going to start pulling from reviews, we have plenty of other sources.

1. “It is also consistent with a consensus in the scientifific community that the recombinant DNA process is not inherently less safe than conventional forms of plant breeding and that the content of crop plants and foods should drive their regulatory scrutiny, not the process by which they were bred (National Research Council 1989, 1994, 1996,2000, and 2010; European Commission Eurobarometer 2010).”[2]
2. Discussing substantial equivalence in terms of safety, “This clearly indicates a large consensus amongst scientists worldwide on GE crop evaluation.” [3]
3. A meta-analysis looking at COI in GM related papers (finding there is relatively little), “Overall, the analysis of all 698 reports collected here makes it clear that GM crops have been extensively evaluated for potential risks and that genetic modification technologies based on recombinant DNA do not carry a greater risk than other types of genetic modification. Claims either that there is not sufficient peer-reviewed literature evaluating GM food/feed safety issues or that COIs prevail in the published literature are not supported by this analysis.” [4]

That’s only just a start glancing through recent reviews. We’ve got consensus statements in all the right places, so I’m still not seeing this continued fussing about the statement. If someone really wants to make a change, then propose one to discuss so we can avoid these long-winded diatribes that are more in line with a forum rather than addressing encyclopedic content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

so we can avoid these long-winded diatribes that are more in line with a forum rather than addressing encyclopedic content Yet you seem to be opening up the RfC debate once again: are these new sources to add to the 18, or replacements? --Tsavage (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• This one's done. No consensus for change. If someone wants to propose alternative wording, good luck. It's worth noting that the paragraph in question states

There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.[4][5][6][7][8][9] However, opponents have objected to GM foods on grounds including safety, environmental impact and the fact that some GM seeds that are food sources are subject to intellectual property rights and owned by corporations.

This presents the objections fairly and with appropriate weight. JMO. Lfstevens (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is no consensus that the sources support the claim - and indeed they do not. No reliable source has been cited yet that would support an extraordinary SC statement. It seems editors here are suggesting that whatever way the RfC fell, it is being read as "don't touch the article". If "Support" was the winning argument, then we would certainly need luck to change the statement. But editors do not agree that this statement is supported, and no new sources have come forth that remedy this situation. If we are going to advocate for any particular presentation, let it be one that is supported by the sources we are providing. If we are using anti-GMO labeling position papers and misrepresenting other sources (which we are presently), this is an urgent issue and one we've spent the last month trying to address. It does not make sense to argue that the RfC says no change is needed. Perhaps it would help to have a simple list of the sources and what they do say, and build the safety statement/paragraph from that. petrarchan47คุก 08:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've only seen one suggestion - David's. Good for him for trying but that violates WP:GEVAL and is not going to fly. I suggest folks concentrate on suggesting language to build consensus around, to replace the current content. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: My suggestion is that you take a pass at it - a safety-related summary statement - since you've been so closely involved over time with the current statement, the sources, and the set of articles. What seems to be well-supported is:

1. "the recombinant DNA process is not inherently less safe than conventional forms of plant breeding"[5]

2. "the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops"[6]

(Sample sources courtesy of Kingofaces43, from above.) --Tsavage (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• If are going to say there is a conflict in rs over what the scientific consensus is, we need a source that mentions the conflict, otherwise it is original research. What I found particularly bad about the RfC was that we were provided with numerous sources, many of which failed the MEDRS standards that the proposer claimed was so important. It was as if quantity could make up for lack of quality. I would like to revisit the issue. So far the only review studies that have been presented say that there is no scientific consensus, and I would therefore oppose presenting a false equivalency by presenting alternative views as having parity. With the current sources, the neutral position is to report what the review studies say and use them to explain the dissenting opinion. Similarly in climate change articles we do not present the mainstream view that there is a consensus that global warming is real and balance opposing views. TFD (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

TFD spoke my mind. The Domingo review is to date the only review to look at impact of GM food on human health, and it remains the highest quality MEDRS-compliant source we have on this issue. It says specifically that there is not a consensus, and perhaps this is exactly why the OP was never able to come up with MEDRS/quality sources saying otherwise, also explains the need for SYNTH/OR. petrarchan47คุก 09:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Domingo review has serious flaws, in that it does things like take the Seralini studies at face value that have been resoundingly rejected by the scientific community. That is why Domingo is a "minority opinion" - he is in a very slim group (including say Suzuki) that is outside the consensus and raises concerns about food safety, but is not apocalyptic about it, like the truly FRINGE group including Jeffrey Smith, Seralini, etc. Jytdog (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Jdog, you are an anonymous WP editor. Your opinion of the science is irrelevant and there is no need to repeat it continuously here. If you have RS denouncing Domingo, that would be relevant. The Seralini study was attacked, but not by all as you suggest. And we need to take into account that these attacks are sometimes politically motivated - but that is not an argument to be made here; here, we find the best sources per MEDRS (in this case), and use them. If Domingo's inclusion of Seralini was seen by the scientific community as discrediting the review, proof should be forthcoming, otherwise these comments from you continue to sound like nothing more than biased, pro-GM opinions coming from an advocate for the industry. petrarchan47คุก 03:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've compiled a list of sources and quotes from the RfC, broken down by type. Additional eyes would be appreciated. Reference quality varies as I've copied those that have fully formatted refs, and just included a link for the others. Quotes are likewise mostly based on what was quoted in the RfC, or in a few cases from past discussions in the archives. Sunrise (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's not reinvent the wheel here, if we use the same sources there is no chance it will have community support, as is the case presently. Please review the RfC and integrate what we've learned. Are you familiar with MEDRS? If not, please review it. I notice that you have placed the AAAS position paper at the top of your highest quality sources. From my RfC vote, I'll repeat:

AAAS letter (the only source besides #3 to claim "consensus")

• not peer-reviewed
• includes a false representation of the WHO's position
• contrasts GM food with "conventional plant breeding techniques", not "conventional food"
• not a review (FAILS MEDRS)
• ADVOCACY, not science: "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." - Tsavage 17:01, 8 June

petrarchan47คุก 03:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Those points are a bit tendentious. As I'm sure you're well aware dealing with MEDRS for awhile now, we consider position statements from organizations to be equal to reviews in many cases. That's usually where one will go for statements of consensus. Scientific organizations putting out position papers is not considering advocacy. Breeding and food are used synonymously (one is the process and the other is the product resulting from the process). If the community is going to decide on a change, we need concerns of substance to address. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: I'm not clear on what your last comment adds:

• Is the AAAS as a working scientific organization on the same level as the US National Academies, the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, the British National Health Service, and the WHO (the named examples in MEDORG)?
• And, according to our AAAS article, AAAS op-ed pieces, AAAS lobbying events, and an official AAAS climate change statement, are all described in the Advocacy section - is that a different sort of advocacy?
• Also, WP:MEDORG says: "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." - where does a single-page, politically-timed, press release-style Board of Directors' position statement opposing GM food labeling fit on that scale?
• Plus, the AAAS release only states that there's no inherent greater risk in GE methods than conventional, it doesn't say all GM food is safe - how is a method (breeding) the same as its result (food)?

This seems to come back to what was already argued in the RfC. We should be moving forward. --Tsavage (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Your last point is distortion of what the document says, "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." I.e., It's not about "methods", it's about the food. Please don't misrepresent sources. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent sources. Please read the source more closely. AAAS has taken the well-supported view that GE methods aren't inherently more risky than conventional methods (which it quotes earlier), and restates it to imply a blanket food safety consensus. In fact, it only says the same thing, i.e. if the same final product is achieved using GE or using conventional methods, the results would be the same, therefore the risk would be the same - it does not comment on actual GM food products, only hypothetical equivalent ones, and it does NOT say that all currently available GM foods are safe. As titled, the public "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods," opposes labeling, so it's only natural they'd try to frame things to best support their case. Please realize, I'm personally not arguing that GM foods are safe or unsafe - how would I know?! - only that the sources don't support the scientific consensus statement; I would oppose POV editing that I encountered regardless of what views were being pushed for any topic. Why are we stuck on this - no one is trying to get rid of sources, only to change contentious wording? --Tsavage (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Artifex Mayhem's reading of the sources is correct.Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The AAAS opposes labeling because "[Labeling] 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. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested." By reading the entire document it seems very clear that when they say "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 they mean exactly that. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I find that by reading the entire document, the intent to present GM food as safe is clear, which is no surprise as that is what it is precisely intended to do. That doesn't alter the fact that they've based their key claim on an EU finding that they first quote:

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

and then creatively paraphrase:

• "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

All they've done is extend methods to their obvious outcomes, in order to discuss the same finding in terms of food consumption: if GE is inherently no riskier than conventional breeding, then its products are no riskier than the same products arrived at by conventional means. You may conclude from that that all currently available GM food is therefore no riskier, but that is not what it says. Interpreting the document in the way you suggest defies WP:RS/AC, which for what we're discussing requires clear and direct equivalent wording, not consideration of whole document context.

It's fascinating how long the consensus statement has been defended, against ongoing reasonable opposition. Back in 2013, an editor questioned this particular source and the comment disappeared under an avalanche of words:

• "I also agree that the AAAS board of directors one-page editorial statement is a problematic source. There's no indication that the AAAS members were polled; it's basically an ex cathedra statement at the ranking at the lowest level of evidence."[7]

How many ways can the obvious be stated: this is not a reliable, independent source upon which Wikipedia can base a "broad scientific consensus" statement. --Tsavage (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sunrise: Thank you for compiling this list of quotes that are not as one-sided as the promotional AAAS statement. However, I still see a greater pro-GMO focus to the selection and ranking of the quotes and sources (many of which originate with the pro-GMO agenda of advocates like Pamela Ronald and Jon Entine), without sufficient consideration for the concerns raised in the RfC about cherry-picking, lack of WP:NPOV and misrepresentations of the various quotes as to whether they truly reflect the agency's position on GMO food safety (and concerns petrarchan47 mention above). These concerns about problems with balance in many of the quotes are particularly evident from reading these sources I mentioned in the RfC (regardless of whether you consider them RS, I have found no inaccuracies in anything they have reported):

• Food & Water Watch Article: "The so-called scientific 'consensus': Why the debate on GMO safety is not over"

• GM Watch publishing excerpts from above above F&WW article immediately above.

• Beyond GMO article: "Who says GMOs are safe? (and who says they’re not)"

As an example, the article "Who says GMOs are safe? (and who says they’re not)" mentions quotes from The Royal Society of Canada, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) and The Australian Medical Association that are not so pro-GMO as the quotes selected. I believe you have not included them in your list. Included in the article is mention of this web-site which lists "124 other health related organizations from around the world that are in agreement with the IAASTD report, and/or support mandatory GMO labeling." The sources we keep seeing and lists of organizations supporting the "scientific consensus" are based on cherry picking, not a systematic review of credible agencies, medical and scientific bodies and the appropriate literature. Also, if you are upgrading or downgrading the quality of a reference, I think some evidence should be provided for whether it is good RS or not RS, rather than immediately assume we are all in agreement with your assessment. David Tornheim (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi David - I only included sources that were directly linked in the RfC. It would have been impractical to include all statements that were cited within those sources as well, as the list would have become many times longer, though I'm happy to start including sources linked since the RfC ended as well. The three sources that you mentioned are in the list, under "probably not (or definitely not) MEDRS" - this classification should be fairly straightforward, though of course everything is open for discussion. I tried to minimize the number of "editorial" decisions necessary, which is why the page deliberately contains no evaluation of source quality beyond the basic groupings.

On that note, I would also point out that there isn't any ranking (Petra made this mistake as well). From the first line of the page, "Entries are in no particular order and loosely follow the order in which they were presented in the RfC." For example, the AAAS happens to be at the top of the first section because it's first in the list of references. Sunrise (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

In my view, our attempts at reworking the statement should start by reducing the number of citations to no more than three; any more is WP:CITEOVERKILL and of little value to the reader. In paring sources, we should adhere to three principles.

• First, the sources cited by the article should be created by doctors who have expertise in researching food safety. As indicated by WP:RS/MC, sources should be authored by experts in the field, not general purpose science practitioners or those who merely have an interest in genetically-modified foods.
• Second, any geographically-unlimited claim should be based on sources that can legitimately claim expertise in the food production and distribution systems of nearly every country on earth. As stated in WP:OPINION, "English language Wikipedia articles should be written for an international audience." A reader in New Zealand, for example, should not be told that available GMO food is safe based on the testimony of United States-specific organizations.
• Third, any claim should fully and accurately reflect each source and not wishful thinking. So, for example, a source that only says that no overt health problems have been clearly caused by the eating of GMO foods should not be used to claim that GMO foods are safe or that they are no more risky than any other class of foods.

World Health Organization publications are possibly the only sources that meet the first two criteria. The AAAS certainly does not meet either criteria; it is a US-specific organization whose members include few doctors (some are even high school students: http://membercentral.aaas.org/membership/categories). Perhaps the best source, one that was cosponsored by the WHO, is this one: http://www.unep.org/dewa/agassessment/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20Report%20%28English%29.pdf. It includes the following quotation:

"Food safety is a major issue in the GMO debate. Potential concerns include alteration in nutritional quality of foods, toxicity, antibiotic resistance, and allergenicity from consuming GM foods. The...approval process of GM crops is considered inadequate. Under current practice, data are provided by the companies owning the genetic materials, making independent verification difficult or impossible." GrayDuck156 (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

GrayDuck156's Proposed Revised Language

So, how about revising the sentence to something like the following:

"According to the World Health Organization, genetically-modified foods currently available on the international market are not likely to present risks for human health, but the approval process for genetically-modified crops is considered inadequate. GrayDuck156 (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

References

This is a good summary safety statement to consider. Separating the health risk and the approval process I think is critical. The strongest safety evidence seems to be that there has been no harm so far, which speaks to "currently available." Bearing on available GM food, and not considered anywhere I could find in the GM articles, is the uniquely lax control over GMOs in the US, which is well-documented. From a 2014 brief prepared by a senior analyst at the Law Office, Library of Congress Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States:

• "Compared to other countries, regulation of GMOs in the US is relatively favorable to their development. GMOs are an economically important component of the biotechnology industry, which now plays a significant role in the US economy.[2] For example, the US is the world’s leading producer of genetically modified (GM) crops."
• The United States does not have any federal legislation that is specific to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
• A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US’s approach to regulating GMOs.

And from one of the documents cited supporting the criticism, a 2006 legal analysis of the FDA, EPA and Dept. of Ag authorities and practices[8] (2006):

• The FDA is responsible for insuring that all food products on the market in the United States, other than meat and poultry, are safe
• The FDA’s statutory authority is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), enacted in 1938. 9 No statutory provisions or FDA regulations expressly cover genetically modified foods
• Interpreted under the Act, both the inserted gene of a transgenic plant and the product that it expresses are food additives, unless they are GRAS. GRAS is "generally recognized as safe," and the FDA has determined that [i]n most cases, the substances expected to become components of food as a result of genetic modification of a plant will be the same as or substantially similar to substances commonly found in food, such as proteins, fats and oils, and carbohydrates,” and therefore will be GRAS.
• The food additive manufacturer, not the FDA, determines whether a food additive is GRAS. A manufacturer does not need to report to the FDA that it has made a GRAS determination, but it may do so and may receive from the FDA an affirmation that the particular substance is GRAS. Thus, the FDA's regulatory requirements with respect to genetically modified food are primarily voluntary. (emphasis added)
• As evidenced by the preceding analysis, the statutory structure under which biotechnological products are regulated in the United States is based on legislation enacted decades ago, long before transgenic products were scientifically conceivable.
• The regulatory inconsistencies identified in this section are irrational and introduce substantial inefficiencies and unreasonable risks into transgenic product regulation.

This appears to be extremely straightforward and germane to any discussion of approved GM food. The above sources can be used to support the second part of the proposed new statement (and, separately, should be made more clear in the relevant articles). --Tsavage (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence is OK but doesn't need to be attributed to the WHO, and should be made relative to conventional food; the main stream view discusses risks of GMOs in light of conventional food - the whole consensus is built on an understanding that "food" is complex stuff and no food - conventional or GMO or organic is perfectly safe. In the second sentence, the view that the regulatory process is inadequate is not mainstream. It is significant minority at the most. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing one can do with mere opinions void of citations. When you declare something a "minority view" (something reserved, it seems, for statements unflattering to the pro-GM narrative), please bring references otherwise there is no reason to add your thoughts to this TP (we don't rely on 'authority' over research).

• "Whatever the motivation, the alfalfa deregulation set a pattern for how the USDA views GMOs: Yes, GMOs cause harm; no, we don't plan to do anything about it. Last week's bluegrass decision, by creating an avenue through which the USDA can avoid conducting environmental impact statements, raises that attitude to the level of policy." Welcome to the Age of GMO Industry Self-Regulation
• "it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants" pubmed 21296423
• Studies finding GMOs are safe and as nutritious as conventional foods are mostly "performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible [for] commercializing these GM plants" ENSSER
• "According to the information reported by the WHO, the genetically modified (GM) products that are currently on the international market have all passed risk assessments conducted by national authorities. These assessments have not indicated any risk to human health. In spite of this clear statement, it is quite amazing to note that the review articles published in international scientific journals during the current decade did not find, or the number was particularly small, references concerning human and animal toxicological/health risks studies on GM foods." pubmed 17987446
• "adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues have been reported. Diversity among the methods and results of the risk assessments reflects the complexity of the subject. While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods." pubmed 19146501
• "So it is the company, not any independent scientific review, providing the research that is relied on to assert safety. FDA guidance to industry issued in 1997 covered voluntary “consultation procedures,” but still relied on the developer of the product to provide safety data. There is currently no regulatory scheme requiring GM food to be tested to see whether it is safe for humans to eat. The FDA approach can be understood as the result of having a dual mission. In addition to its mission to protect food safety, the FDA was charged with promotion of the biotech industry." American Bar Assnpetrarchan47คุก 19:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a proposal there, just a bunch of conspiracy theorizing and soapboxing based on sources we would never use in WP. Please propose language based on usable sources. Look, GMOs are mainstream, and food from GMOs is mainstream. WP is not a place for righting great wrongs. And P, this is the last time I will warn you about Michael Taylor, who is a living person, not a zombie from hell. BLP applies to Talk pages and http://www.responsibletechnology.org/ is not a reliable source for information about him. I will give you formal warning on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no proposal as yet, we are gathering sources as a group for perusal, just as you did with the 18 sources that do not support, after all, the hotly contested statement you have added to many WP articles. Why are you so unhappy with this process here, when you took part in it during the RfC? I am not in agreement with your take on my input above, nor with your changing David Tornheim's section heading, which I have reverted back. Your defensiveness of Michael Taylor is strange, and I don't understand the reaction nor the scary warning notice to my TP. Regardless, please stop trying to bash everyone for simply trying to get the story straight.

Instead, why not bring citations as asked? You claim that it is not a popular notion that US regulations of GMOs are lax, but you did not bring evidence beyond your own uber-pro-GM opinion, which at this point is so predictable you really don't need to even comment here. I can pretty much do it for you. petrarchan47คุก 22:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I probably have enough diffs of you violating BLP with regard to Taylor already but I wanted to warn you a last time. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is an untruth and can be proven by anyone interested - just search "Taylor" on this talk page. These are the only times I've mentioned him: 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. and (quotation from here) After leaving the FDA, Taylor went to the Department of Agriculture, where he quickly and quietly helped get rBGH approved for consumer use. I don't know what you're freaking out about. I worked at the BLP for Edward Snowden for a year and a half where all sorts of things were said about him, and among the whole community no one reacted in any way comparable to how you are doing now. I am at a loss. petrarchan47คุก 00:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Skating on very thin ice; repeating what you already did. Hm. Please read BLP - blogs and other crap sources cannot be used to support negative claims about people. And I never said anything about being limited to this Talk page - I mean across all of Wikipedia. Do not push this, P. Read all the bad sources you want and write all the negative things you want, outside of WP; you cannot do that here, nor bring such sources here, with regard to living people. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I realize you always have to have the last word, but please drop this off topic nonsense - if I've made actionable comments about Michael Taylor, this GM talk page is not the place to discuss it. I expect you will summon me to the nearest noticeboard if you have a case. Until then, keep it to yourself. petrarchan47คุก 15:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What I have said is that per Mainstream World - on "the sky is blue" level, food from GMOs is regulated adequately. There are offices in countries around the world full of scientists and lawyers who regulate it and have regulated it for about 20 years now. It is like saying that regulation of microwave ovens is "inadequate". It is FRINGEy and based on a FRINGEy understanding of the science. It is not the mainstream view and the statement is UNDUE for that view per NPOV and PSCI. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No. Citing your understanding of "the science" and trying to compare it to some other user's understanding of science in no way proves your claim that "regulation is sufficient", especially when the RS says otherwise. Neither does making up the bogus comparison of regulation of microwave ovens. Neither does saying that because there is a "world full of scientists and lawyers who regulate it", when we all know that regulators can be corrupted and/or or otherwise fail to protect the public from known potential dangers, such as with "Tobacco science" or Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster or Chernobyl disaster. You need RS to prove that experts in the field assert that GMO's are sufficiently regulated (when the RS says otherwise), not hand waving and appeal to your view from authority and/or claims of expertise. Where is the RS supporting your claim? David Tornheim (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, GMO food is regulated, in that there are laws and regulations and people, but that is as far as the mainstream statement can go. "Adequately" depends on the viewpoint: adequately according to the public? according to scientists? or according to legal scholars (who are the appropriate law experts)? Science is used to inform legislation, but obviously does not drive it; in lawmaking, scientific opinion and evidence are routinely ignored when conflicting outcomes are favored. That was my point in bringing up the US legal material: trying to tie regulatory issues exclusively or primarily to science is like saying scientists write the laws. An impression is given that active government food safety oversight exists in the US, when in practice that oversight primarily consists of regulators saying to companies, "Let us know if you think there's going to be a problem." That conclusion is indicated by analysis not of scientific evidence, but of the laws that govern what reaches the market. It's not all just about science. --Tsavage (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Experts in the field, are the ones actually regulating food from from GMOs every day. They are doing what is mainstream. Like how farmers farm every day is mainstream, like how firefighters fight fires every day is mainstream, etc etc etc. It is a regular function of society. You can fill libraries with the documentation of the underlying laws and regulations and their procedures and the standards they have developed and the documents posted on their websites of the outcomes of their evaluations; a real world scientific/legal bureaucracy generates scads of documenation. And almost every one of the many sources used to support the current statement, say this as well. Regulation everywhere is always a balance between protecting the public interest and allowing innovation. Regulators always want better tools and more information; they always settle for what can be reasonably done in the real world.

The view that current systems are inadequate is just FRINGEy protest-y; it is is protesting against the mainstream, standard practice. WP does not give the most weight to the protest POV; that turns NPOV on its head. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Of what relevance is your personal opinion of how the world works? The bottom line here is that we're not talking about mainstream and minority assessments when it comes to the US GM regulatory system, it's simple facts that are missing from these articles, like the fact that nearly 100% of GM foods on the market in the US were not subject to government testing whatsoever, they were cleared by definition, and any safety assurance there may be comes voluntarily from the companies. And if you want expert opinion on regulatory systems: how they work and how to work them, you certainly don't go to scientists...lawyers are the experts here. More giant holes of omission in the GM articles...

To liven up the dry facts with a first-hand quote, here's Jane Henney, FDA Commissioner at the time: " In 1992, we developed a policy for foods that were being developed using the tools of modern biotechnology. We did that to communicate to industry what we saw as the issues around these foods, and what we would expect [them to do] with respect to testing and food safety issues. ... We clearly communicated that if foods were being changed using these methods, ... or if there was anything posed, like an allergen, we would require labeling on those particular products. [The] industry, to the best of our knowledge, ... has complied with that. ... As we have held meetings on these matters, I think we are satisfied that there were no safety issues missed. There was nothing introduced into the marketplace that would have posed a problem. ..." --Tsavage (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My view is of no relevance. What is of great relevance is that all these regulatory engines actually exist and function. Do I need to prove that they do? No. They are what is being protested. They are the mainstream. What you write above is not accurate. Companies do tests that regulators want to see. Regulators review the results. Sometimes they ask for more tests to be done. When they have all the data they are going to get, regulators decide if the proposed product is safe enough for its proposed use. Companies don't decide. You need to learn more about the regulatory process before you make claims about it. Our article has pretty good information and there is even more in the sources provided in the article. Please do your homework. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] This type of statement (which you also made towards me today) goes against policy, please stop. Please see WP:OWNBEHAVIOR - Examples given:

• Are you qualified to edit this article?
• You obviously have no hands-on experience with this topic. petrarchan47คุก 03:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

P, please read WP:CIR. Asking folks to base discussion grounded in an understanding of what actually goes on, is not OWN. It helps us reach policy-based consensus, which is what we are after. Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I agree with Tsavage that your personal views about how regulation works and how well it works is not relevant at all here, and it is a distraction. Additionally, your definitions of "mainstream" do not comport with Wikipedia. Wikipedia defines Mainstream as follows:

Mainstream refers to a current of thought that is presently widespread. It includes all popular culture and media culture, typically disseminated by mass media.

The mainstream popular majority view is that GMO's are not safe and should be labelled, and with your familiarity with the Genetically modified food controversies article, I'm sure you are well aware of that. But I'll provide RS anyway. For example: [this]. Also, 93% of Americans think GMO's should be labelled according to this New York Times survey. So the "mainstream" view of GMO's, GMO safety and labeling and adequacy of regulation does not comport with your views of what "mainstream" means.

We all know that Wikipedia is not going to report the mainstream view as if it were a fact, because the public can be wrong and so can the media. So Wikipedia relies instead on the "mainstream scholarship" WP:VALID or "mainstream scientists" WP:PSCI as experts, not the public and not the views of civil servant regulators, farmers, firefighters or lawyers who are "in the trenches". This bizarre tangent saying that low level regulators are mainstream "experts" is not helpful to improving the article, because it has nothing to with WP:RS and WP:PAG.

Please let us focus on correcting the "scientific consensus" statement that was not sustained by your RfC and in this section addressing GrayDuck156's proposed statement. Please provide solid RS to back up your objections and assertions, rather than giving personal opinions and expecting us to trust your views are solidly based on RS, especially when RS is provided that says otherwise. These tangents are distracting and in my opinion wasting our time, which has the effect of keeping the status quo defective sentence in place. You have agreed that the sentence needs revision, and you have been asked a number of times to provide an alternative sentence, which you think would gain consensus, and I have yet to see it. What I see is opposition and distraction to attempts to improve the problematic sentence. Please let us stay focused on improving the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Our article on the controversies has a section on public opinion where we report polls like that. That's great. and if you actually read that NY Times poll, you see that only "26 percent said these foods are not safe to eat, or are toxic." That's all. About a quarter of all people. Not the mainstream view, even among the masses. The scientific community is even more clear (what was it, something like 88% understand that food from GMOs is as safe as conventional food), as members of the scientific community understand the science. Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

respoding to the above - OK some sources about mainstream "approval process" which is what the proposed language says: Please see the existence of FDA and the way it regulates GM food, European Food Safety Authority and how it regulates GM food, Food Standards Australia New Zealand and how it regulates GM food, CTNBio in Brazil and how it regulates food, and how it is done in Argentina. And here is Canada. This is not citing "low level regulators" this is describing how regulation actually works. The real world, mainstream reality that is all around us.

It is rare the media report simply on what regulators actually do as opposed to reporting on some flare up (in which case they are reporting on that) but there are some examples:

• Chicago tribune Jan 2014
• this piece from Grist is actually not bad. (and David, please do read this for the whole "Voluntary" thing, which is not really voluntary at all)
• the Pew Trusts produced an objective report in 2001, here

There are scads more, already cited in our articles.

If you read about these regulatory agencies, which have approved many many kinds of GM food products that are on the market today, you will find clearly described methods to evaluate food safety. The earth is round, there are functioning bureaucracies through which currently marketed GM food has come to market. There are many articles that simply describe reality. Unless you want to take the FRINGE conspiracy view that all of these agencies are corrupt, you have to describe what they actually do and describe that as the adequate, mainstream approach to approving the GM food that has actually been approved. We can give a voice to critics, but per NPOV they must get less WEIGHT, and the farther away from the mainstream the critics go, the less weight they get.Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure "these regulatory agencies" have approved GM foods (what number or percentage is "many many"?), the question is, what is that approval process? You point to the Chicago Tribune, Grist and Pew Trusts as sources that tell us, but why not instead use a gold standard secondary source, such as a Library of Congress brief on Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States (Mar 2014, last updated 9 Jun 2015), prepared to answer exactly such questions - it says (emphasis added):

• Under the FFDCA, substances added to food can be classified either as “food additives,” which require approval from the FDA that they are safe before they can be marketed,[45] and substances added to food classified as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS), as to which preapproval is not needed.[46] In a 1992 policy statement, the FDA reaffirmed that in most cases it would treat foods derived from GMOs like those derived from conventionally bred plants, and that most foods derived from GM plants would be presumptively GRAS. However, with respect to a GMO product “that differs significantly in structure, function, or composition from substances found currently in food,” premarket approval of the substance as a food additive would be required.[47]

There is no mention of the key FDA regulatory designation of GRAS in our GM food articles (unless I missed it), when that is the cornerstone, the first point of potential intervention, of the current US regulatory policy for safety of GM plant food for human consumption. Also, there is no mention of GMOs in our Generally recognized as safe article. It seems like a big omission of basic factual information. (Library of Congress has GMO restriction reports for 22 individual countries, an European Union report, and one on International Protocols.) --Tsavage (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, what you write here is very confused, and you are being adamant about it. This makes things difficult. Please do read the Grist article - it explains pretty clearly what the actual regulatory process in the US is and the way it actually works. (you also should be aware that new things are added to the GRAS list all the time - you have to do experiments and submit data to the FDA if you want to get something added to the GRAS list. see this. More relevant, please do read this explanation from the FDA of how they regulate GM food. there is a link there, to this page, where you will find 169 letters from the FDA to companies about specific GM products. You will not find the word GRAS in any of them. And if you look at the GRAS list, you will not see GM foods added to it, as they go through the FDA. The FDA does not actually treat GM foods under its GRAS procedures. Treating GM foods in a way similar to how GRAS proposals are treated is one thing; saying that they are treated under the GRAS provisions is different, and wrong. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Grist article, "The GM safety dance: What’s rule and what’s real," is an interesting enough read, a food writer on a one man's quest to find his truth, but it's not a useful encyclopedic source, entirely subjective, and based mostly on interviews in a he said-she said style. And it doesn't come to any real point (except to point to a Part 2):

"So: Are people like Hansen and Gurian-Sherman right to say there’s no required safety testing? Or is Giddings right that the testing is de facto mandatory? In a very real way, both are right."

You're arguing around basic facts, yet not saying much other than, "Read this. And this..." And I've read all that stuff. Turning to the confusing FDA site does nothing for interpretation; instead, I'm quoting and referring to reliable analysis of regulations (policies that the White House has just announced "can make it difficult for the public to understand how the safety of biotechnology products is evaluated, and navigating the regulatory process for these products can be unduly challenging, especially for small companies" - not a great source either, and mostly a primary source in your links, which means expert knowledge of the overall framework is required for proper understanding.

This isn't the discussion in which to detail specifics of the FDA food safety policy, still, the basic facts I've been able to gather from the Library of Congress report and its 105 cited sources, is that GRAS is the default designation for GM food plants, which allows them not to be classified as "food additives," thereby avoiding government safety testing. Voluntary application for review results in the FDA examining data supplied by the applicant, to confirm or deny GRAS/food additive exemption. In any case, a basic description of the US GM food regulatory process should be in the appropriate articles, not solely the subject of Talk page debate.

My point once again is only that any sort of blanket statement that implies that all GM food on the market has been government-tested should be clarified at least for the US case. -Tsavage (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your takeaway that the FDA actually classifies GMO food as GRAS is not accurate. And no where in the GM suite of articles does WP come even close to saying that GM food (or any drug, or any pesticide, or any food additive) is "government-tested". I don't know any developed country where any regulated product gets through the regulatory process with government testing. People wanting to sell X, pay to have X tested, and submit the data to the relevant regulator of X. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your takeaway that the FDA actually classifies GMO food as GRAS is not accurate. OK, let's say I'm competency-challenged, please translate this, taken from the relevant FDA Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties: Guidance to Industry for Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties (emphasis added):

FDA has reviewed its position on the applicability of the food additive definition and section 409 of the act to foods derived from new plant varieties in light of the intended changes in the composition of foods that might result from the newer techniques of genetic modification. The statutory definition of "food additive" makes clear that it is the intended or expected introduction of a substance into food that makes the substance potentially subject to food additive regulation. Thus, in the case of foods derived from new plant varieties, it is the transferred genetic material and the intended expression product or products that could be subject to food additive regulation, if such material or expression products are not GRAS.

With respect to transferred genetic material (nucleic acids), generally FDA does not anticipate that transferred genetic material would itself be subject to food additive regulation. Nucleic acids are present in the cells of every living organism, including every plant and animal used for food by humans or animals, and do not raise a safety concern as a component of food. In regulatory terms, such material is presumed to be GRAS. Although the guidance provided in section VII. calls for a good understanding of the identity of the genetic material being transferred through genetic modification techniques, FDA does not expect that there will be any serious question about the GRAS status of transferred genetic material.

FDA expects that the intended expression product or products present in foods derived from new plant varieties will typically be proteins or substances produced by the action of protein enzymes, such as carbohydrates, and fats and oils. When the substance present in the food is one that is already present at generally comparable or greater levels in currently consumed foods, there is unlikely to be a safety question sufficient to call into question the presumed GRAS status of such naturally occurring substances and thus warrant formal premarket review and approval by FDA. Likewise, minor variations in molecular structure that do not affect safety would not ordinarily affect the GRAS status of the substances and, thus, would not ordinarily require regulation of the substance as a food additive.

I've already mentioned this more properly from a reliable secondary source, and there it is again, from the original policy statement.

no where in the GM suite of articles does WP come even close to saying that GM food is "government-tested Let's replace "government-tested" with: we don't want to present the regulatory process in a way that may give the wrong impression of the nature and degree of government involvement. If the usual FDA procedure is to examine voluntarily submitted applicant data to see whether or not a GM product should be subject to premarket testing, or whether it is premarket approval exempt per GRAS designation, then we should say that, and explain how substantial equivalence is applied to make this determination (as described, for example, in the three paragraphs just excerpted). --Tsavage (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should simply add something like this segment from the Michael Taylor article to the relevant GM articles: The 1992 guidance, for example, treats "transferred genetic material and the intended expression product or products" in food derived from GM crops as food additives subject to existing food additive regulation, under which that material may be considered either generally recognized as safe (GRAS) or not, initially at the producer's determination.[8] If the food additive is not GRAS, the producer is required to submit data proving that the food additive does not "adulterate" the food - in other words, that the additive is not injurious to health. taken from the FDA's website. petrarchan47คุก 06:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note: the above needs to have a secondary source, and probably needs attention at the original article (Taylor) as well - per WP:RS: While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. So I revoke my suggestion to add this bit as-is. petrarchan47คุก 17:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of what I am doing above there, is just describing what the regulatory process actually is so that we are starting with the same set of facts. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, I would translate the key points of your quote roughly as follows:

• Paragraph 1: "Food additives are defined as substances that are intended or expected to be introduced into food. If GMOs are regulated under food additive regulation, then the additives would be the introduced nucleic acids and the intended expression products."
• Paragraph 2: "Nucleic acids in themselves do not raise safety concerns, and as such nucleic acids are GRAS." [NB: not GMOs as a whole]
• Paragraph 3: "The expression products will probably be GRAS if those expression products are already consumed in food at equal or higher levels. This also applies to minor variations if those variations do not affect safety."
• Paragraph 4 (which you didn't quote): "The expression products may not be GRAS if they differ significantly from those already consumed in food, so in such cases regulation as a food additive may be required."

--Sunrise (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sunrise: I suppose your point is "not GMOs as a whole" - are you clear on the FDA definition of "food" in that policy, which encompasses ALL food, it doesn't seem that you understand how the FDA considers "GMOs"? The larger question is, why are you providing your own "translation" of a primary source, when I've already provided a high quality secondary source that summarizes the GRAS aspect of that FDA policy? The Library of Congress source is fully equipped with its own citations, which provide additional detail as required, so in this case, we don't need to spend more time arguing about reliability of sources, unless the purpose is to argue. To repeat the relevant material from a few replies above:

• Under the FFDCA, substances added to food can be classified either as “food additives,” which require approval from the FDA that they are safe before they can be marketed,[45] and substances added to food classified as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS), as to which preapproval is not needed.[46] In a 1992 policy statement, the FDA reaffirmed that in most cases it would treat foods derived from GMOs like those derived from conventionally bred plants, and that most foods derived from GM plants would be presumptively GRAS. However, with respect to a GMO product “that differs significantly in structure, function, or composition from substances found currently in food,” premarket approval of the substance as a food additive would be required.[47][9]

Out of curiosity, do you have expert level familiarity with the US food regulatory framework and how it is applied to GM products? In any case, it would seem best for the editing process to stick to good quality secondary sources when they are available (which is what I have attempted to do with Jytdog), rather than spin out discussion based on original interpretation of primary sources.

The bottom line is that without mention of GRAS in the GM food and regulation articles, there is a significant omission of basic information on US GM food safety regulations and procedures, which in turn is central to the context for a Wikipedia summary statement about GM food safety. --Tsavage (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I was responding to your request to "please translate this" - I wasn't making any points, or indeed looking at the context of the document. It did seem unusual that you were requesting this analysis for what is indeed a primary source. (I included the "NB" because I thought that was a place where you might be misunderstanding the source.)

I don't have great familiarity specifically with regulation or legal decisions (Jytdog has more), though I'm able to competently discuss the science involved if it becomes relevant. To the extent that your point is that the regulation section should include a mention of GRAS, I don't have any objections to that, though directly including something like "most foods derived from GM plants would be presumptively GRAS" would probably need context in the form of explaining why that would be. Sunrise (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sunrise: Unfortunately, not helpful. The quoted material is clear, and I was inviting Jytdog to explain his contrary claim, "Your takeaway that the FDA actually classifies GMO food as GRAS is not accurate." He still hasn't responded.

As for putting GM plants would be presumptively GRAS in context of substantial equivalence, and the fact that the US does not have federal legislation specific to GMOs, and covers GMOs from a position of "it's the result not method that counts," that's already been covered in this particular discussion (if you're stepping in to answer for Jytdog, and haven't read the entire thread, please scroll up). I will start editing content eventually; right now, I'm following the Talk-first process to the perhaps bitter end, to see if any sort of actual collaboration eventually results, or whether some editors keep arguing endlessly. --Tsavage (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Working to find a consensus on a complex and controversial issue is not "arguing endlessly". In any case, it is unclear what content you are proposing at this point in time. What are you proposing? Jytdog (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

By "context" I was thinking more broadly, in terms of describing the scientific reasons why the majority of current GMOs do not in fact raise safety concerns (and thus why a statement like "usually GRAS" might be reasonable). I wasn't answering "for" anybody - I just noticed a point about which it seemed you had made a good-faith request for clarification, so I decided to answer it. Also, if you haven't actually said that the "FDA actually classifies GMO food as GRAS" per Jytdog, then my NB was unnecessary, though you definitely said that GRAS is the "default" classification for GM plants, which AFAIK is also incorrect. Sunrise (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sunrise:, @Jytdog: You don't seem to be reading or addressing: "the FDA reaffirmed ... that most foods derived from GM plants would be presumptively GRAS"[10] Continuing to argue against that without addressing it is what I'd call arguing endlessly.

Jytdog, there's no additional content proposal yet, we're discussing your objection to the "inadequate regulation" part of the proposed new safety summary; you'd said:

• "the view that the regulatory process is inadequate is not mainstream. It is significant minority at the most"
• "It is FRINGEy and based on a FRINGEy understanding of the science. It is not the mainstream view and the statement is UNDUE for that view per NPOV and PSCI"

Since the Regulation section only superficially describes regulation, and primarily covers the US (in a paragraph that is incomplete, misleading, and sourced to a FAQ published by Monsanto), sorting out regulation seems to be a necessary step. GRAS is a cornerstone of FDA food safety policy that's unmentioned in the article. --Tsavage (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, you're continuing to quote the same primary source after (rightly) asking us to keep to secondaries. Could you please specify what you think is not being addressed? For my part, I've already agreed that a discussion of GRAS would be a good addition to the Regulation section, as long as it can be described neutrally. Sunrise (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sunrise:, this IS a secondary source, it's been repeatedly linked to, described - "why not instead use a gold standard secondary source, such as a Library of Congress brief on Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States (Mar 2014, last updated 9 Jun 2015), prepared to answer exactly such questions" - and is STILL not being acknowledged by you or Jytdog.

Jytdog has changed venues for this discussion, so there's no point in continuing here at the moment. An overhaul of the Regulation section (and the whole article) is needed, but for now I guess it's seeing what happens at the RS noticeboard. Endlessly arguing the same things over and over and over... --Tsavage (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage It might be a mistake to think the RS noticeboard is peppered with uninvolved peers weighing in with guideline based responses. Instead, the same folks who supported the sources in the formal RfC are questioning how anyone could doubt the prestigious AAAS. Perhaps we should hold another RfC here on the use of this source. Otherwise, the RS noticeboard is serving as an informal RfC that only a few people know about. Seems a bit like forum shopping, hoping for a more friendly audience. But I'm not sure we'll get the most neutral result without another formal RfC. petrarchan47คุก 14:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: In the current situation, I don't see any choice other than to follow the discussion through these twists and turns, which have now led to RSN. I don't want to be part of subjecting editors on a site-wide board to random, out of context parts of the ongoing discussion that is and belongs here, but the alternative is to not participate there, and risk some new mini-"consensus" on some detail, that can be brought back here to stretch things out further. Right now, the RSN question is trying to establish only the authority of the AAAS, not whether it supports the content, which is kinda bizarre, since in any evidence-based approach, evidence based on authority alone has practically no value - "because the AAAS said it, it must be valuable" isn't a WP:V argument, which is the policy it all comes down to. In any case, the discussion eventually has to return here. I'm for now still just refusing to be worn down. :) --Tsavage (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to be editing far too quickly today and missing things that I shouldn't - again below, and once more on a different article. My apologies, and struck. I'd just like to make it clear that as I implied in my previous comment, I have no objection to using the secondary source for this article. I'm also happy to continue discussing, since I don't think the RSN discussion directly affects this (though I'm going to sign off for now, and de-stress or otherwise fix whatever it is that's causing problems for me today). Sunrise (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support revised language as a whole, not for its individual parts. By including both portions, the language is more WP:NPOV by more accurately reflecting the ambivalent statements and uncertainty found in the WHO (and other credible sources) with regard to adequacy of GMO food safety testing. David Tornheim (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• We should describe what actually happens, not what should happen. The US is way past "rule of law". We live in a world of "whatever". How about describing what happened in the potato case (assuming it's not a one-off)? Lfstevens (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Lfstevens, I don't understand your second sentence - would you please elaborate? thx. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Lfstevens, I second Jytdog's request for clarification, and expand it to the whole of your proposal. Is "what actually happens, not what should happen" a suggestion that we take a less academic, more investigative, journalistic approach? If so, that sounds...exciting. I doubt it would achieve much support, but I'd like to hear more! --Tsavage (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support of version: While GMO Proponents, such as the AAAS[1] and AMA[2] and Pamela Ronald[3] claim there is a "scientific consensus" regarding the safety of GMO technology and GMO foods, published peer reviewed articles in scientific journals challenge this claim of a scientific “consensus”[4] and report a lack of sufficient study of GMO safety. -- No scientific consensus on GMO safety. The current article version does not mention a consensus, i can except the current version as well, but the issue might be explained in more detail elsewhere. Also i support the revised version ""According to the World Health Organization, genetically-modified foods currently available on the international market are not likely to present risks for human health[1], but the approval process for genetically-modified crops is considered inadequate" Many of the other articles still claim there is a consensus.prokaryotes (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

proposal for consensus statement

The closer said we should be able to get consensus with a minor tweak. Let's go slow. Tsavage, above you made a big deal out of "as safe as" vs "as risky as". So how about, this toned down a bit version?

• "The scientific consensus holds that eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food. Minority views hold that there is some risk" Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The "scientific consensus" needs MEDRS sourcing - it has none. petrarchan47คุก 03:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The minor tweak begins with removing "scientific consensus" - you have never directly addressed WP:RS/AC, which has been brought up many many times. You can interpret the various evidence - in theory no greater risk from GE; no documented harm so far - as scientific consensus for general GM food safety if you like, but there is no direct source for it, so that's SYNTH/OR. And the inaccurate, incomplete Regulation section that has the US information sourced to Monsanto, has to be fixed to be referenced in a "currently marketed" type statement - regulation determines what's (legally) on the market. --Tsavage (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing "scientific consensus" would be a major change, not a minor tweak. Jytdog (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The "scientific consensus" is, if for anything, that there is no greater risk inherent in genetic engineering than in conventional breeding - if you wish to keep "scientific consensus" then try amending the rest of the statement. I consider minor tweak to be changing a few words while maintaining exactly the same factual meaning. You seem to want to add the additional impact of a politically-loaded phrasing - "scientific consensus" - to summarize a set of evidence that can be communicated otherwise. You want to interpret WP:PAG however it suits you, liberally citing WP:FRINGE, which attempts to clarify core content policy for specific situations, while ignoring WP:RS/AC, which in the same way clarifies those core policies specifically for the use of "scientific consensus." --Tsavage (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Again, with sources:
  • "The scientific consensus holds that eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food. Minority views hold that there is some risk."

References

Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Incrementally better, but your "scientific consensus" is still unsupported, and still attributed to a mess of citations, instead of a single RS source per WP:RS/AC, perhaps with a second example of the same.

You persist in leading with the AAAS source, despite its rejection by several editors. It does not contain the required wording, it is not a review of scientific evidence, and AAAS is a general science advocacy organization and journal publisher, with membership open to scientists and non-scientists alike. Also, a similarly worded version of the most relevant portion of the AAAS statement appears without attribution in Monsanto's own voice:

"Governmental regulatory agencies, scientific organizations and leading health associations worldwide agree that food grown from GM crops is safe to eat. The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, among others that have examined the evidence, all come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is safe to eat and no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredi¬ents from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques (i.e. plant breeding)." Monsanto: Commonly Asked Questions about the Food Safety of GMOs

Monsanto mentions the AAAS as being against GMO labeling, and links to the AAAS anti-labeling statement as a third-party resource, while the preceding excerpt, unlike other quoted statements in that FAQ, is not attributed. Here is the equivalent statement from the AAAS release:

"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."Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

In addition to the other reasons for rejecting the AAAS as RS for the "scientific consensus" statement, it is not clear whether the AAAS is paraphrasing Monsanto PR copy, or vice versa, or whether it's just coincidentally nearly identical. You need a better source for "scientific consensus." --Tsavage (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The rejection of the statement by the board of the AAAS and the claim that the board of the AAAS, arguably the most important nongovernmental scientific society in the US and the publisher of one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world, is a mouthpiece for Monsanto is really FRINGEy. I'll bring this to RSN, so we can lay that to rest. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

which is done: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Statement_by_the_board_of_the_AAAS Jytdog (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I really think that the AAAS source shouldn't be dominating this discussion - we have a couple dozen strong sources that could support similar statements with minor rewording. I'd also comment that WT:MEDRS may be a better place for the reliability discussion.

Either way, I think this particular proposal still gives too much weight to the minority view ("minority" can be up to 49%, after all) - this would especially problematic for those readers who don't fully understand what "scientific consensus" means. Additionally, calling it a minority view in article text requires us to have sources directly calling it a minority view, per the same principles of WP:RS/AC. I wouldn't necessarily oppose anything organized along these lines, but it would need different sourcing and better qualification. Sunrise (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I hear that, and welcome alternative proposals from anybody. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sunrise: You say, "I think this particular proposal still gives too much weight to the minority view." You then go on to say, "Additionally, calling it a minority view in article text requires us to have sources directly calling it a minority view." Then why are you calling the Domingo article (that is WP:MEDRS quality) a minority view if there is no RS calling it a minority view? What WP:PAG are you relying on to make this claim that Domingo is a "minority" view if there is no WP:RS for this claim? If WP:RS does not claim it is a "minority" (or WP:Fringe) view, then, therefore, doesn't it make more sense to assume that it has parity with other WP:MEDRS level sources, especially since this was written by experts in the field of toxicology? David Tornheim (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

David, the difference is that we do more analysis on talk pages than we can include in articles. We're allowed to (in fact, are required to) consider source-based rationales that some sources have more weight than others. We have a minimum cutoff point, set by RS or MEDRS, but that tends to obscure the fact that reliability is a continuum. In any case, if I say "this is a minority/fringe" on a talk page, it's an abbreviation for the full form of the argument: "the sources which support this viewpoint have less weight than those that don't, from which we can infer that it is minority/fringe," where the distinction between minority and fringe depends largely on the degree of the imbalance. However, I wouldn't consider that sufficient reasoning to include the statement in an article, because e.g. the process of determining reliability and weight involves considerations that would not be acceptable for article content proposals. Sunrise (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• I find it troubling Sunrise that you changed the wording for WP:RS/AC from "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold" to "The statement that many, all or most scientists or scholars hold", particularly since you are involved in this discussion which rests on this very guideline. Was this a unilateral decision to change the guideline to make it more lenient? petrarchan47คุก 05:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC) I've reverted the change, it should go through community consensus process. petrarchan47คุก 05:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that the same principle applies. Making an edit along those lines has been on my to-do list for a long time now and this discussion reminded me of it, though on reflection I should have realized it might look like that and continued to hold off. I've opened a section there but won't pursue it further. Sunrise (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Recap

The AAAS question at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard doesn't seem to be bringing anything new to this discussion, so hopefully editors are still around to continue here. What I've gathered so far:

1. no source for a "consensus statement" on "all currently available GM food"

2. substantial scientific agreement that GM does not introduce additional risk through the process itself compared to conventional breeding

3. no documented cases of harm from GM food so far

4. unclear on what "currently available/currently marketed GM food" is: not stated to what reference date that applies, and to which region: GM food on the international market, or in the various countries where regulations and approved products vary?

The last point is not...hair-splitting, it has been addressed previously in regard to an incomplete description of Regulation, in this and in the dedicated article. In particular, seems like the differences between the US regulatory framework and the rules elsewhere should be simply explained. So, the article needs improvement as well as the safety statement (also previously noted). --Tsavage (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The first is a minority view on this page and at RSN. The 2nd and 3rd are good. the 4th, I don't understand. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Either there is a source for the "consensus" or there is not, the "minority" argument doesn't make sense in this instance. Secondly, another review came out a few days ago and should be included (along with Domingo, the last of Jdog's references in the section above) in this assessment. If folks here are unable to obtain the full paper, I can summarize it when I have a bit of time. petrarchan47คุก 23:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog:: In reply to your comments:

Point 1: Cite a single source that clearly states scientific consensus for all currently marketed GM food, per WP:RS/AC. Is it the AAAS? Risk equivalence between GE and conventional breeding methods is not the same as a risk/safety statement for specific products. Present one source to verify the claim as WP:PAGs require; back it up if you like with additional sources after that.

Point 4 is simple: What is "currently marketed GM food"? What are those foods specifically? "Currently" as of when? Marketed where (maybe I live in the UK, or New Zealand, or the US, or South Korea,... - not all available GM foods are approved for safety and on the market everywhere)? Unqualified, the scope is so broad and vague as to be practically meaningless, especially to our target general reader. If it means, "legally available in any market as of X date," that makes sense. Then, we just need a source that says "scientific consensus" or equivalent wording for no greater risk/as safe as, for that definition of "currently marketed." (See Point 1.)

Furthermore, the article should develop what is summarized in the lead. The scientific consensus statement is not clearly developed in the article, it is only repeated. There is no food safety section or reasonable overview, and the Regulation section does not provide a basic overview of the regulatory situation around the world. All of this is easily summarized in a few paragraphs. Pointing to other articles is not a remedy for deficiencies in this one. --Tsavage (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the body, not vice versa. The other two points are united, in that the relative safety is based on

• a) an understanding of the science - that genetic engineering is not some crazy voodoo or in any way bizarre, but rather is routine - taking a gene from A sticking it in B happens, and has happened, in hundreds of research labs around the world every day for the last twenty years or so (very near the beginning of the AAAS statement: " 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."). So much of the opposition to GMOs is based on frank ignorance of this - that genetic engineering is as routine as buying milk to anyone even mildly familiar with contemporary biology. This is one of my biggest frustrations in these discussions. I talk to scientists everyday and I can't emphasize this enough - if they want to study the activity of some protein and they don't think twice - they don't blink - over the notion of slapping that gene into a plasmid, throwing that gene into bacteria, and making a bunch of it. It is like going to the store for milk. they don't even think twice about doing that in order to study some other thing -- genetic engineering is a commonly used tool in biology. You can also order proteins made that way, or plasmids made that way, or even mice made that way, over the internet like you order a book from Amazon. The GE processis no big deal.
• b) an understanding of the review process. The only relevant question then, is whether some given instance of a GM crop is safe to use and to eat. As the AAAS statement discusses starting at the bottom of the second column, each instance goes through regulatory review before it goes to market - the review process ensures that some given instance isn't allergenic or introduce some off-target toxicity - the risks are well known and tested for. So the regulatory process ensures that currently marketed food is OK and that is how we end up with "currently marketed". if you have some better way to summarize the idea that not any GM food imagineable is safe, but only those that have been through the regulatory process, i am all ears.

This is all discussed in the AAAS and in several of the other sources used to support the current statement. Which, by the way, I would be happy to consider modifications to, and I wish you would propose an alternative , Tsavage. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: In reply:

• "the lead summarizes the body, not vice versa" - Please reread what I wrote until you understand it. The lead should summarize; the article should go into more detail, it should develop the subject. For the scientific consensus statement, this article does not go into more detail, it does not appropriately unpick the blanket consensus statement.

• "a) an understanding of the science" - You've restated in 250 words what was last said in 18: "substantial scientific agreement that GM does not introduce additional risk through the process itself compared to conventional breeding." As for general readers, it is reasonable to assume many do not understand this concept, which is why it should be made clear in the article. However, no greater risk does not address the fact that GM allows creation of novel products that conventional breeding cannot practically achieve. You can't conflate an all-things-being-equal comparison between GM and conventional methods, with case by case actual results of the more powerful GM methods. (Yes, as I understand it, conventional methods are also being advanced and made more powerful, but GM remains well-ahead - please correct me here if I am wrong.)

• "b) an understanding of the review process" - Exactly. As I pointed out, the differences in review process, which varies by country for those countries with GMO regulation, should be described and explained, and the fact that the US is uniquely favorable to commercialization of GM food should be noted, as should the fact that "a substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US’s approach to regulating GMOs," with a brief explanation.^[11] The AAAS statement specifically refers to the US review process only: "In order to receive regulatory approval in the United States, each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and testing."^[12] The situation is different in other countries. Some countries that, unlike the US, have specific national GMO legislation, do not have any GM food on the market. This is not at all made clear in the article. The bottom line here is that safety as a function of review processes is ultimately determined politically, not purely scientifically: how can we have scientific consensus over the results of political decisions about what science to apply and how to apply it?

If you want to inform the general reader, explain the verifiable reality in readable language. Don't try to fix misperceptions by trying to weight things in order to steer readers to "the truth," which is what this scientific consensus statement seems intended to do.

Regarding GM food safety, we should at the least:

• describe risk equivalence between GM and conventional breeding;
• describe substantial equivalence and how review processes are based on that approach;
• touch on non-targeted assessment and traceability as scientifically of at least equal importance in safety evaluation;
• discuss the situation with long-term testing;
• present an overview of the percentage of GM foods in the human food supply around the world;
• note that no harm has been reported so far from people eating GM foods.

This information in the article can then be summarized as a safety statement in the lead. All of those points are not difficult to present in a concise form (indeed, some of that information was once in this article, and was removed to other locations). IMHO, of course. --Tsavage (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, so now you are talking about the article, not the consensus statement per se. not a recap. OK then. So if that is what you what you want to talk about, please let me know how you see this article working with content already in the Controversies article, in the Regulation of Release article, and apparently the GM crops article and the Genetic Engineering article (since your first bullet point is about growing crops, not about food) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: No, this is not basis for another long and fruitless tangential discussion. This is a recap and continuation of the current discussion. Article improvement is already a central part of the current conversation around the consensus statement - you have participated in that, just scroll up to refresh your memory. The points are not new, only restated once again to answer you:

• The current consensus statement needs to be reworded now - you have agreed with that - so that can be done independently, taking into account the main points: risk equivalence for methods, no harm so far, and non-uniformity of regulation worldwide.
• The article also needs to be fixed. Eventually, we should arrive at something like what I outlined, article body and safety summary alike. Your previous WP:SYNC argument about daughter articles does not fly: one article should not suffer because other articles exist.
• "Suggestions for reorganizing this article and related GM topics" was recently presented, above. It is consistent with everything else recently discussed.

All of these edits could be roughly committed in a couple hours, initially, mostly by cut and pasting from archived versions and daughter articles, immediately edited for readability, and then incrementally improved. None of it is internally contentious, apart from the consensus statement, it's mostly already sourced and published. In addition, the current (2014-2015) Library of Congress suite of GM0 restriction reports provide a highest quality secondary source for much of this, they include social context, and numerous - hundreds - of directly relevant citations for additional detail. It's not difficult to do, only resistance to improvement stands in the way.

Summary: We can fix the consensus statement now. And we can begin improving the article now. One does not need to follow the other - nothing special here, there is no rigid linear process, this is the way articles are usually edited on Wikipedia, incrementally and simultaneously on multiple fronts, by one or several editors. --Tsavage (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a highly contested article and it makes sense to agree on what we are going to do so all hell doesn't break loose. I really am happy to do talk about revising the conensus statement and look forward to sa suggestion from you on that. Your suggestion you linked to above about structure didn't make sense to me as I wrote there - I couldn't figure out what you meant. Happy to keep discussing that but the terminology you were using just didn't communicate to me. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: The question here is whether you continue to want some form of blanket safety statement, or whether summarizing the available evidence is sufficient. Other editors have proposed reworked wording of a statement that you've rejected. My opinion is that, for the lead, a paragraph on food safety explaining:

• no evidence of harm so far (in context of 20 or so years on the market);
• general scientific agreement that GM isn't inherently riskier - safety is considered case by case concerning the specific modification and not the method by which it was accomplished;
• regulations (or lack thereof) on a country by country basis determine what is actually legally available.

At this point, that is my suggestion. It is not hard to write up. --Tsavage (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That was really helpful. Every bullet there is fine by me. Shall I propose actual content for discussion here, or would you like to? Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You can propose the content for discussion. --Tsavage (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice that when you mention no harm since 20 years on market, also mention that long term is unknown. Warnings on this come from credible sources, currently part of the article, i.e. horizontal gene transfer. prokaryotes (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There's also a fringe element tucked into the long term is unknown type claims. There are moving goal-post arguments that get made in the context sometimes, so we'd need to be careful to avoid vague aspersions to the unknown and focus on what sources legitimately say are areas needed for future research. It can be tricky to sort out an arm-chair scientist hypothesis from a legitimately grounded concern here, so just a caution depending on what is actually proposed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The current version, reference No.93, contains a reliable source about long term consequences (unpredictable results). If you think this is fringe then provide some reliable source to back up the claims, also i wonder why this is in the current article version then.prokaryotes (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that one out. I removed it since it doesn't appear to fit WP:MEDRS There's no indication that this Vienna Doctor’s Chamber is a reputable organization in the field (there's really very little on it), and Dr. Hans-Peter Petutschnig appears to just be a PR person in the group, so we can't quote in terms of expertise either. That one actually does get into some vague arm waving that isn't taken seriously in literature on this topic, but that's beside the point when reliability is questionable.

There actually is a whole field of risk-analysis that actually addresses whether such concerns are legitimate or not. Some of that tends to be scattered within multiple reviews, but I've seen a few good sources that summarize the risk-analysis side of things pretty well that I've been meaning to look over again specifically for these articles. Another thing for the to-do list. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No sign that there is any fringe in it as you suggested above or has to do with MEDRS, I've re-added what appears to be very reasonable. It has also nothing to do with MEDRS (biomedical research).prokaryotes (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing fringe for that specific source, just reliability. However, the content is directly addressing human health, so there is no question MEDRS applies here. If you're not quite catching the reliability issues I mentioned in my post above, it might be worth discussing in a separate section to keep the current discussion on more topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The reference is tied to the paragraph, and when we mention Greenpeace etc, (though the Vienna source isn't mentioned there), why not add those references too? This has nothing to do with MEDRS here, it has to do with the entire section. You remove now selectively reference to content which had been part of the article for months. Possible implications from long term effects are a issue raised, you can not make this fact go away by removing cites.prokaryotes (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And did you even read the statement, it calls for better research. prokaryotes (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Relevant study No scientific consensus on GMO safety or An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment, and there is much more, but since the above discussion is about an alleged consensus... prokaryotes (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes that source has been discussed to death and takes a FRINGE perspective. Jytdog (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Framing valid science as fringe is a concern, please take more care, otherwise I have to assume that your edits are agenda driven. Are you a paid editor?prokaryotes (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 review has not been discussed here as far as I am aware. We have Domingo listed in the references that we're attempting to summarize (see top of this section, ref 7) to support The minority view holds that there is some risk. Domingo has already been accepted and arrives at essentially the same conclusion. We need to swap out Domingo in the refs above with the more recent one from Tufts, which includes Domingo and 7 other reviews in the assessment. "Fringe" is being used here incorrectly.

[A position paper by the AAAS is not MEDRS but is being used to make a health claim in WP's voice; oftentimes sources that favor the biotech industry have no problem making it into this article, and sources which have anything 'negative' to add will be 'discussed' here on the talk page until people end up retiring out of frustration.]

From a review of the Tufts paper:

A Tufts researcher, Sheldon Krimsky, recently published his assessment of the last seven years of peer-reviewed evidence, finding 26 studies that "reported adverse effects or uncertainties of GMOs fed to animals...Contrary to the claims of consensus, he found 26 studies that showed significant cause for concern in animal studies, among many studies that showed no harm.

Krimsky found eight reviews of the literature and they showed anything but consensus. Three cited cause for concern from existing animal studies. Two found inadequate evidence of harm that could affect humans, justifying the U.S. government’s principle that if GM crops are "substantially equivalent" to their non-GM counterparts, this is adequate to guarantee safety. Three reviews suggested that the evidence base is limited, the types of studies that have been done are inadequate to guarantee safety even if they show no harm, and further study and improved testing is warranted.

Another review of the paper noted:

...two particular points of agreement among these conflicting reviews. First, rigorous premarket testing should be used. And second, there are no established techniques and experimental protocols for assessing potential health hazards from GM crops. Both pro- and anti-GM reports make these points.

I found these points striking. Even if one could identify a “practical consensus” on GM food safety (a “99% of published articles on the topic conclude they’re safe” kind of thing), it’s not clear that this consensus would mean much without agreement on what kinds of methods should be used to test for hazards.

The longstanding safety claim does not have support as written. To write a new summary of the science, we should lay out the material being summarized. Jytdog listed sources above - it would be helpful to write a paragraph or two detailing the findings and various statements and then come up with a summary. petrarchan47คุก 04:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is very good now, "There is general scientific agreement that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food.[4][5][6][7][8][9] However, other sources conclude that because of research issues due to intellectual property rights, limited access to research material, differences in methods, analysis and the interpretation of data, it is not possible to state if GMOs are generally safe or unsafe, and instead must be a judged on case-by-case basis." And the question is then if we should add a safety or research section as well, and edits to the controversy section. prokaryotes (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a bit of fringe POVs/activism mired in the intellectual property rights, etc. type comments you see in sources out there, but the more important problem is that it's more of a distraction from why they are actually judged on a case by case basis. For a toxicological standpoint, each event undergoes risk analysis because it's the protein/gene product that is being tested for various safety parameters. The heart of most any consensus statement in papers is that transgenic processes themselves do not pose an increased safety risk; there are inherent risks with consuming any crop species or variety (e.g. Solanine#Solanine_in_potatoes, so it's no longer of a question of whether something is GM or not (it's just like any new gene at that point), but really what your chemical of interest is in the plant. The choice is just easier in this case when you know what you've added already instead of the unknown changes you get in conventional breeding.

We'd want to be more reflective of the above in any consensus statement in explaining why case by case analyses are done. Basically a two tiered statement saying the GM process itself doesn't increase risk, but like any crop variety, you'd need to do testing specifically on that to ensure more general safety. We do need to be careful about confounding that latter part into meaning that GM crops are unique in that they need to tested on a case by case basis if you decided to look for safety concerns. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We'd just need a good source for this, King, besides you. It would need translation per WP:TECHNICAL into language a non-scientist (the vast majority of WP readers) would understand - another reason to refer to RS and ignore OR. petrarchan47คุก 20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• It would help to see the sources being used, Prokaryotes, for the claims following "However...". I suppose the WHO and Krimsky/Tufts would suffice. And, of course a statement or section on the actual science to date must be included in the article. We might consider opening a separate TP section to discuss that. petrarchan47คุก 20:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Taleb, redux

About this addition added by a WP:SPA account with regard to Taleb per their contribs, and my reversion, please see here Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not clear on the problem. Here's the deleted content:

Nassim Taleb, Rupert Read, Raphael Douady, Joseph Norman, Yaneer Bar-Yam have proposed that many of the concerns raised about GMOs are valid. They posit that the threat posed by genetically modified organisms is vastly underestimated and the risk from GMOs should be treated differently from those that only have the potential for local harm. They show that GMOs represent a public risk of global harm (while harm from nuclear energy is comparatively limited and better characterized) and that a non-naive version of the Precautionary Principle should be used to prescribe severe limits on GMOs.^{The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)}

I just read the cited paper. The GMO arguments are interesting and easily understood. Also read the previous discussion about this, and still not clear on what basis this is being argued for exclusion from a Controversies section:

• Not familiar with Taleb, but quick search indicates that he is a noted academic, scientist and author of a popular book on the PP-related topic of unpredictability. The other authors of the paper seem to have reasonable credentials for the topic.

• The paper is a primary source regarding its formulation of "non-naive PP," but I don't see how that is a problem in this context: hard scientific conclusions are not being drawn from it, and it presents an argument concerning safety and proliferation of GMOs that is fully cited and distinct from the PP aspect. This seems no different than presenting a controversy sourced to an Organic Consumers web page or newspaper article. And we readily reference primary sources (and secondary sources about their own primary source material) at the FDA and elsewhere.

• There is significant public discussion of the paper, it may not be feature NY Times (is that our gold standard?), but it's not like this is an obscure dissertation: Nassim Taleb And Josh Barro Went At It On Twitter And Things Got Unpleasant, Is Nassim Taleb a “dangerous imbecile” or on the pay of anti-GMO activists?, Renowned Expert: GMOs Pose More Risk Than We Think. And the New York Times did just publish him in his own words: Another ‘Too Big to Fail’ System in G.M.O.s.

To serve the reader on this complex, complicated subject, this article should be as representative of all views as possible; all verifiable information of general interest should included, and a hundred or so words on a GMO safety consideration from an interesting theoretical perspective seems as due as, for example, the (overweighted) 500 words on soy alone we currently have. Give appropriate weight where it is due. --Tsavage (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

taleb is an important economist but was way, way out of his field of expertise in writing about ecology, genetic engineering, and regulation. maybe fun to read and play with but has zero - zero - relevance to any consideration of GM food in the real world. not even serious enough to be FRINGE. To prove me wrong please bring some mainstream secondary sources that treat the analysis he presents seriously. thx Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"please bring some mainstream secondary sources that treat the analysis he presents seriously" Why? There's no arguing for his GMO analysis, only presenting it as a view under Controversies - and it is a risk analysis and complex systems experts' opinion about systemic GMO risk that is out there in reliable secondary sources.

"taleb ... was way, way out of his field of expertise in writing about ecology, genetic engineering, and regulation" That is identical to me saying biotechnologists are way, way, way out of their field in performing any sort of systemic risk analysis. None of the evidence I've seen here has to do with mathematical analysis of risk, the best I've read is cautious extrapolation of "no harm so far, let's keep our eyes open as we move forward" - please bring some mainstream biotech risk analysis, if that is what solely GE scientists are qualified to do in biotech. Or is biotech exempt from formal risk analysis? (I'm learning so much, when all I originally wanted to know was why 18 citations for scientific consensus, which STILL hasn't been resolved?!) --Tsavage (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In order to mention the paper, you would have to show that it has received widespread coverage, which it has not. Google scholar for example shows that it has never been cited. TFD (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It has received significant mainstream coverage: Business Insider, Motley Fool, [Bloomberg, Discover - I'm unclear as to the standard for noteworthiness for the existence of an academic paper, including a basic description of its content, that you're applying. In other discussions, mainstream media coverage was cited (I can specifically recall a scientific paper, and a court case). In this context, the paper is not being used for its academic finding, only to describe its general position as a controversial view. --Tsavage (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

not popular media crap. review articles in the field. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not answering my question. Why does it need review articles in the field to establish noteworthiness as to its existence and basic content in the context of Controversies? --Tsavage (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Famous person X who knows a lot about A says strident, ignorant things about B. It will never effect the actual field of B. That is why we use reviews/major statements, not popular press. If you want to make a claim that what he wrote is relevant to B, please bring a review from the field of B discussing it. This is not a video game article. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Still no answer. Expert in A publishes an Analysis of Field B within the framework of A. The Analysis receives significant popular media coverage. That should be sufficient for noteworthiness as to its existence. If there is insufficient reliable secondary source coverage, that's an argument against inclusion. Otherwise, where does a requirement for reviews from Field B come in (I assume you are referring to WP:PAG)? Under WP:WEIGHT, as a view held by a tiny minority, it could be excluded. However, in terms of describing controversies, which include a wide range of issues made relevant only by their popular discussion, this seems like a reasonable candidate (as an example of, from the Controversies section, "the effects on health, the environment"), if the secondary sources are sufficiently widespread. This could also be proposed via the secondary sources. This probably ends up as yet another editor consensus issue. --Tsavage (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I've answered you three times. We need secondary sources in the field, not from popular media. This is a science-based argument (from an expert about X writing about Y) - we need to hear from experts in the field of Y to decide if this should have any weight at all. In the former conversation at the Controversies article, in the absence of any secondary sources from the relevant field, we opted to give this zero weight. I have seen no secondary sources from the relevant field that would change that. Let me say this again - this is not an article about video games - this is a science-based article and we use the science-based literature. Your push to base this article on popular media will turn this article into a barnyard - a Gamergate II. We need to keep source quality high. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, you would need to show the article has been picked up in review articles in order to determine its contribution to the scientific debate. If you merely want to claim that the position has attracted notice among the general public, then widespread media coverage would suffice. A brief mention in Business Insider, which does not even explain Taleb's article, is insufficient. The article in fact discusses the tone of tweets sent by him. TFD (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@TFD: Thanks for the clarification. I was quite clear on that, the point being the difference between your brief and directly relevant replies, and Jytdog's obfuscating approach (matched, to be sure, by my replies to him). I'm trying to see a way through this overall gridlock... As for Taleb, I'm not sure there is enough secondary coverage that would meet everyone's standards, but there is significant coverage online, mostly tirades against his PP paper, and on pro-GMO-y sites. Some:

• Black Swans, Frankenfoods and Disaster Fairy Tales Bloomberg dedicated editorial
• Is Nassim Taleb Right About Monsanto Company and GMOs? Motley Fool - dedicated column
• Renowned Expert: GMOs Pose More Risk Than We Think Motley Fool - dedicated column
• “Imbeciles” on Twitter Continue to Distract Nassim Taleb Discover dedicated column discussing the PP paper
• Is Nassim Taleb a “dangerous imbecile” or on the pay of anti-GMO activists? Genetic Literacy Project - dedicated column
• Nassim Taleb, The Precautionary Principle, and GMOs Neurologica a blog by Steven Novella, founder of the Science-Based Medicine blog, a popular source in some circles here - dedicated column
• Nassim Taleb And Josh Barro Went At It On Twitter And Things Got Unpleasant Business Insider - dedicated column (covering combative Twitter exhange with NY Times reporter concerning PP paper)
• The trouble with the genetically modified future Japan Times - dedicated editorial
• Another ‘Too Big to Fail’ System in G.M.O.s New York Times - op-ed co-authored by Taleb on same GMO-PP core themee

I'm not pushing for inclusion here, I am questioning Jytdog's deletion and subsequent argument, which seems inappropriate for collaborative editing. --Tsavage (talk)

We already have this in article:

• Opponents such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace claim risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities.[citation needed]

Why is the bar so low for inclusion of this content (no source at all), but Taleb is silenced? This type inconsistency in editing at GM articles can be seen as biased. If there is another explanation for it, I haven't figured it out yet. petrarchan47คุก 01:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the edit summaries for the 3 reverts of this content were not helpful. They referenced (loosely) some archive at another page. I'm sure this isn't how summaries are to work. I went looking for the elusive TP section to no avail. Please be kind to fellow editors and don't make things harder and more time consuming than need be. petrarchan47คุก 01:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, those are mostly op-eds which are not considered reliable sources, even when they appear in respected newspapers, except for the opinions of their authors. Wikipedia is a tertiary source based primarily on secondary sources, which you would need to establish the significance of Taleb's article. TFD (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is sufficient support to establish that the Taleb paper was significantly brought to the public's attention. Among the sources listed, there are five regular columnists from two business news publications (Bloomberg^[13][14], Motley Fool^[15][16]) and one science (Discover^[17]), who discuss and review the paper in fair detail. The publishers are well-established, and since the sources serve only to establish the existence and recognition of the paper, not to draw facts from, they should be reliable for that purpose. The paper itself is a reliable primary source for its title and brief description (for example, based on the abstract). Just one opinion. :) --Tsavage (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, columns are not reliable sources and weight requires coverage in reliable sources in order to establish significance. If you disagree with these two policies then you should argue to change them rather than to make an exception here. If the paper were significant, then there would be actual news stories about it. Journalists would then consult scientists and determine its degree of acceptance which we would then mention in the article. Until they do that, any mention of the article provides it with greater weight than it has in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

More importantly, if the paper were a significant contribution to the field of risk management of GMOs it would be discussed in secondary sources in the relevant literature - we don't use popular press to judge the WEIGHT to give to science-based matters. Wikipedia doesn't respond to science by press release - we ignore it. Jytdog (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The PAGs are generally fine, it's how they are interpreted that can get problematic. Rembember, we're talking about a Controversies section, where it has been argued that a "scientific consensus" statement is necessary to balance all sorts of unscientific claims. Taleb's paper is both well-publicized and controversial, yet somehow our rules can be interpreted to exclude it from Controversies. The columnists cited are journalists, analyzing the paper, much as a film or theater or fashion or automotive or food or health reviewer analyzes products in their field, and they are reliable sources (WP:NEWSORG) for those views.

We have multiple citations supporting hard science facts from an article in the Atlantic: What You Need to Know About Genetically Engineered Food has no citations, just a byline, and prominently incorporates findings from at least one primary source scientific study. Is this the author's opinion on the subject? Has the science been vetted by the Atlantic biotech editors? It seems we interpret PAGs as we wish to suit the desired outcome: include one general media source for hard science information in one place, but require MEDRS-grade sources somewhere else; include a press release because it's from a prestigious organization, and exclude a paper because it has the wrong kind of reliable source coverage. --Tsavage (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Taleb brought a novel analysis to GMO risk assessment; so far there it is being ignored in the relevant secondary literature. The stuff from Atlantic is rehashing stuff that is very well documented, like the scientific consensus. You are comparing apples to oranges. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

1. This is not argument for argument's sake, it is in the context of the Controverises section and article that have been vigorously argued for: RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section? and Genetically modified food controversies. We have controversy section and article with little to no actual controversies described.

2. "The stuff from Atlantic is rehashing stuff that is very well documented" To the general reader, without benefit of your background understanding, it's a general interest magazine article being used to verify things like the percentage of GM DNA remaining in processed food products. Like I said, PAGs interpreted to fit the outcome. --Tsavage (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

With a little more looking, it turns out we do have academic citations for Taleb's Precautionary Principle paper:

• Fear of principles? A cautious defense of the Precautionary Principle
• Vulnerability Analysis Of Interdependent Infrastructure Systems
• Managing complexity in the public services (book)

--Tsavage (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

hm! First is some essay (written in the first person even); 2nd is another primary source that just cites Taleb. 3rd looks potentially useful - checking it out. thx for digging them up. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

We'd get a lot further with less pain and text if if every seemingly anti-GMO proposed change was actually treated in good faith, and the energy used arguing about it was instead directed towards thoroughly checking it out. Those citations were not difficult to find with Google Scholar. And now, why with more non-useful criticisms?:

• "First is some essay (written in the first person even)" The folks at Springer must be out of their minds charging 40 bucks to read some essay by Gloria Origgi. And if writing in the first person in an abstract is grounds for downgrading or dismissing a paper, then we need to look again at the Pamela Ronald support^[18] for the scientific consensus safety statement, she makes the same grave error, writing in her abstract: "In this review, I describe some lessons learned,..." (We should look at that source more closely regardless.)
• "2nd is another primary source that just cites Taleb" - for these purposes, a paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, ICASP12 Vancouver, Canada, July 12 - 15, 2015 seems to indicate some acceptance in the Taleb's field

The precautionary principle paper is about a "non-naive" version of the PP, and uses GMOs as an in-depth example, so there is the method and the application. On what grounds do we dismiss the method by criticizing the biological assumptions made in one specific example? All we're talking about here is incrementally improving a GM foods controversy section by listing noteworthy examples of controversial views. --Tsavage (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." (my emphases) So columns cannot justify inclusion. As for the academic sources, two does not mention Taleb's article on GMO and while three does, it does not mention GMO. Those authors are interested in Taleb's writing on the precautionary principle, rather than GMO. TFD (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No scientific facts are being asserted. The content entry named and gave a summary description of a paper, which can be sourced from the paper itself, a non-interpretative use of the primary source. Noteworthiness is established by the various RS columnists. The academic citations, further establish the noteworthiness. The context is controversial views. How are other controversial views established in the section and in the controversies article?

"two does not mention Taleb's article on GMO" - It does, check the citation, it is just using an earlier title of the same paper (there is a 2014 updated version). Please see the cited link. Also, the last paragrpha of my previous comment: Taleb has proposed a "non-naive PP" and GMO is a sample application. --Tsavage (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Noteworthiness can only be established by being written about in reliable sources. And even if two does cite Taleb's article it says nothing about GMO. TFD (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no sourcing issue: by policy, opinion pieces are reliable for quotation or direct paraphrase with in-line attribution (and they are by definition secondary sources for the topics they cover).

Weight is the only possible question: Taleb is notable, distinguished and well-known in science and to the public. When he produces material in his field that is directly relevant to a topic, simple mention of that material in coverage of that topic should not be a problem. If editors question Taleb's level of prominence, for discussion purposes, we can point to the multiple citations and columns from reputable publications to indicate that the item itself is in fact out there.

A simple descriptive mention in a Controversies section, where noteworthy contrary views are recorded, is fine with a citation to the paper itself. (This use of "primary source" as a magical eraser stick is unhelpful; primary sources are used in many routine cases - see this article's References - they're just not what most of the encyclopedia is built on, because we don't draw interpretive and summary material from them.) --Tsavage (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at the book source you brought this weekend; besides WEIGHT and FRINGE there is also the question of what article this would be added to. Controversies seems the most apt; Genetically modified crops seems next most apt since Taleb's focus is agriculture, not food. Seems least app here - this article is about food. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Weight is a critical issue. You mention that Taleb is notable, which is true and his views on the precautionary principle may be significant to that article. But being notable does not mean that everything one writes, regardless of whether it has been reported in reliable secondary sources, is significant. David Icke for example is a notable writer who claims that the world's leaders are secretly reptiles. By your reasoning, we could add that claim to countless articles. TFD (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

TFD: "being notable does not mean that everything one writes ... is significant" That is not what is being suggested. Work produced by an expert in his field can't be equated with any old extemporaneous comment about anything from anyone, just because they're notable. From Taleb's paper:

"The aim of this paper is to place the concept of precaution within a formal statistical and risk-analysis structure, grounding it in probability theory and the properties of complex systems."

From a renowned expert in statistics and risk analysis, that's a far different proposition than that of a well-known self-proclaimed "Son of the Godhead," with no other relevant qualifications, writing that politicians are in fact alien lifeforms - I'm surprised you'd make that comparison.

In this case, we have a Controversies section and spinoff article that hardly describe any controversies. Taleb's is an expert viewpoint that speaks to food safety, it's existence merits at least acknowledgement in a Controversies section and article, areas dedicated to minority views. If there is a problem with determining weight in the context of controversies, it's because there are no controversies to compare it to - this would be an incremental improvement, one minority view actually described and sourced. --Tsavage (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

FRINGE. not minority. we don't cite every expert spouting about things outside of their field. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: It's one thing to cry FRINGE whenever you like, but to seriously claim anything as FRINGE - "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" - you have to be prepared to illustrate with specific examples and sources, whether in discussion or content.

I'm not arguing for Taleb's GMO PP, I am questioning your use of FRINGE.

In this case, what is the departure from mainstream in risk analysis? And what is the departure in biology/biotech? For instance, Taleb's paper states:

"For the impact of GMOs on health, the evaluation of whether the genetic engineering of a particular chemical (protein) into a plant is OK by the FDA is based upon considering limited existing knowledge of risks associated with that protein. The number of ways such an evaluation can be in error is large."

Can you state that that is categorically wrong? From what I've read in NAS and other comprehensive reviews of GM from the early 2000s (and I can quote), targeted testing for substantial equivalence is considered robust and adequate at this time (for food safety), however, the reviews also clearly acknowledge that tools and understanding for broader testing - non-targeted assessment, looking for the unknown unknowns - are currently not well advanced and need to be developed: there is lots that science can't yet measure and doesn't yet understand in this area, but what we have now may be sufficient to proceed with only reasonable risk.

In other words, unless I'm misunderstanding this entirely, Taleb is considering the systemic effect of the unknown and unexpected. This doesn't sound like a significant departure from the mainstream, instead, isn't it simply feeding mainstream biology into a particular risk model? You can argue specifics, saying his assumptions show a lack of understanding of the relevant biology, but isn't that more in line with, for example, a criticism of poor experimental design or faulty data, than with a wild departure from the mainstream? FRINGE has to be demonstrated. --Tsavage (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, even if someone is the top expert in their field, it does not mean that every thing they write is significant. Their various theories are only significant to the extent they are reported in the relevant literature. If you think what Taleb wrote about about global warming is so significant it should be mentioned in this article, can you please explain why not a single expert has mentioned it? Do you think they are all wrong? In any case, the policy of weight is clear. This article is supposed to summarize what one would find in most mainstream sources and not provide weight to views never reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

TFD: The context here is "controversies," which hasn't been particularly well-defined by example, but seems to be widely inclusive: "key areas of controversy are whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, objectivity of scientific research and publication, and the effects on health, the environment." Taleb's PP has been in reliable sources, as demonstrated above. We're supposed to represent all relevant views with due weight, this in my opinion clears the bar for mention here.

"can you please explain why not a single expert has mentioned it" What type of expert are you referring to? I can guess that anything to do with GMOs and the precautionary principle is a scientific and political hot potato, it's hard to argue risk and uncertainty, when the risks are difficult to quantify and ultimately unknown. By publishing the Taleb GMO editorial last month, the NY Times made a statement, giving it wide play without having to take a position. Motley Fool, a popular financial news outlet, evaluated life sciences companies' exposure in light of Taleb's position. Common sense says, when we're devoting thousands of words to Controversies, this fits in for a mention. --Tsavage (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

The size of this talk page recently grew to an utterly ridiculous 758,895 bytes - that makes it impossible for some to edit. I have therefore set the archiving to occur after 30, rather than 90 days, with an exception for the three most recent threads. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, that's an unwieldy size. On the other hand, there are related ongoing issues that are now spread across THREE archives, beginning with WHO source. This obscures the debate, and would seem to make it more difficult for newly-arriving editors to gain an overview. Subjecting things to endless argument seems to be the standard operating procedure for this article, which makes it difficult enough to propose changes, without current related discussion being hard to find. Perhaps manual archiving, to split archives into more useful sections, would be better in this case.

RSN, NOR and NPOV noticeboards are maxarchived at 250k. --Tsavage (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It would help if people wrote shorter comments instead of WP:WALLS. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen a 903-word single paragraph replying to an editor having problems with this same scientific consensus. Impressive but not too user-friendly. --Tsavage (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is archived unless the section has not been edited for (with present settings) 30 days. That's not "ongoing". At 632,073 bytes, this is by far the longest talk page on Wikipedia - over 20% longer than the next-biggest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha, wow (20% longer), that's crazy. With that much text, I guess in practice it doesn't matter if it's accessible at a glance, who's going to read it all from scratch? I have no argument with settings on this page; the archive page size could be bigger. (FYI, re "ongoing," I think all but one of those sections going back to the WHO section (linked above) three archives away are directly connected to a current dispute about the scientific consensus statement and how it relates to the rest of the article, that is...ongoing. It's kinda ridiculous, but I guess that's the process - you should read it all!) Thanks for the reply. --Tsavage (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed untrue statement

I removed an untrue statement from the page (diff). The actual fact is that 98% of soybean meal is used as animal feed. A lot of soybean crop is processed into oil for human consumption, and the meal is put into animal feed. So i removed the untrue statement. Here is a source on that. SageRad (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate

Prokaryotes in this set of difs you added a bunch of content about glyphosate. Glyphosate is not an herbicide; it is not genetically modified food. I reverted here. This is a very controversial article. Please do not edit aggressively. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC) (fix stupid drafting mistake Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC))

Yes G indeed is a herbicide (further context Herbicide#Classification), and there are many parts which overlap, i.e. the modification to tolerate various herbicides, or the history section begins with "Food biotechnology is a branch of food science that seeks to improve foods and food production." Hence, why the mention of glyphospahte is relevant in the article of GMF. Vote below:

• Include Per above.prokaryotes (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Include - The material is authoritative and well-sourced. Jusdafax 11:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) This is a small part of the GMO controversies rather than about GM food in general and the sources barely mention GM food and it's therefore not appropriate to include the section as it was unless better sources are available which show that this is a major part of the debate over GM food. Even then, it would be only worth a brief mention rather than a whole section. SmartSE (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Glyphospahe is currently 4 times mentioned in the article. Where do you suggest we should add it? History section? Notice here are current news on the topic of GMF and G.Current news Scientists call for new review of herbicide, cite 'flawed' U.S. regulations - New England Journal of Medicine article calls for GMO labels on foods This all underlines why the content belongs in the article.prokaryotes (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog are you still against inclusion of The Lancet study, since your above argument is not valid? I suggest we could add this under a section named Herbicides, maybe move some other content there and add some more sources (New England Journal of Medicine) which call for labeling based on recent developments. prokaryotes (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, if by "the lancet study" you mean the announcement of the new IARC classification of glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen", I was very involved in adding the content about new IARC finding to the Glyphosate article, which is where discussion about it belongs. The announcement came out way back in March; you are apparently just catching up with that. Please note that one of the leaders of IARC team said. "'Probable’ means that there was enough evidence to say it is more than possible, but not enough evidence to say it is a carcinogen.... It means you ought to be a little concerned about glyphosate." The sky is not falling, and at this point no major market has changed its regulation based on the new IARC classfication - the full report has not even been pubished yet, and it is unlikely that anyone will take action til they can see the whole thing. In any case, this article is about GM food per se; herbicides are not GM food.Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If the article is not about herbicides, why then is the word mentioned 5 times? The lede begins with "These have been engineered for resistance to pathogens and herbicides.. " The point is that these foods are sprayed with G, and that is a concern when a governmental organization labels the herbicide as "Probable human carcinogen". Anyway consensus will now determine if we include the content or not. prokaryotes (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say that glyphosate is a separate topic from genetically modified food, but it is so intertwined that it's an integral part of the story of genetically modified food, and it is found in most genetically modified food. I would like to see a way to tell the reality as it is, which is that the most common genetic modification of food crops presently is tolerance for glyphosate, and that glyphosate is in most genetically modified foods (as it is also in some non-GM foods as well, though typically in lower amounts). I think we can find a way to integrate glyphosate's position and role in genetically modified foods, and then link to the glyphosate article for all things specific to glyphosate. The topics are related but separate. Herbicide use dependent on genetic modification is definitely part of the story and dynamic of genetically modified foods, though. SageRad (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is a RS article "GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer." for the connection.prokaryotes (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That is an opinion piece by a well-known advocate for organic food and a well-known advocate against pesticides. Not a surprise; says nothing new that many people have not said before. I get it that you are riled up Prokaryotes but please slow down. The things you are raising are not new. Please review the relevant talk pages and you will see lots of ongoing discussion. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog i notice that you use various labels and frame certain positions in a way what appears to fit your point of view. I looked at the page of the author and can read, a highly credible evidence-based advocate for public health - now compare this to your view, "a well-known advocate against pesticides". However, your personal opinion of the author is in fact irrelevant in the discussion, because his article is published in The England Journal of Medicine, and cited by what appears to be a reliable secondary source. Please try to be more objective, thanks.prokaryotes (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

opinion piece, not article. Editorials have limited use per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. He is also a well-known advocate for children's health, which is a great thing. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The only opinion i can read are your frequent posts on talk pages, which when i follow them normally turn in circles, just take this article talk page here. You have added nothing to the discussion actually, above you claim G is not a herbicide, now you change your argument, but RS is reporting on the editorial and there is a published study. prokaryotes (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I never said that G is not a herbicide... that is just kooky to claim that. There are two questions here - should this article about GM food have a section on glyphosate; and if so, what do we say about it? I say no to the first, and you haven't given a good reason as to why we should include content on it. If we do say anything, that content should reflect the current best sources (which would be the IARC study and the recent German review), and should be about glyphosate residues. As I mentioned the IARC has not published their full report, but it appears that they are emphasizing epidemiological studies about farm workers who are exposed to glyphosate while they are working, which is a level and duration of exposure that has nothing to do exposure you would get from eating food derived from GM crops, almost all of which is highly processed (e.g. corn or soy oil) Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC) (i did make a drafting mistake Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC))

You wrote above: G is not an herbicide... DIF. Maybe you meant to write something else idk. Look it is very simple, the question is where we add the dif content we discuss in this section. IHMO under a section on Food production or Herbicides. This could be extended with the mention of calls for GMO labeling, but since that is very fresh maybe not exactly right now.prokaryotes (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

So I did. stupid drafting mistake that I just fixed. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice that you put your evaluation of the science above those of the experts from The New England Journal? We go with the published sources. If you can add something great, but otherwise we have to use the sources mentioned, not what you think is or isn't relevant.prokaryotes (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not putting my opinion above anybody's. I am describing what the whole range of sources says. I get it that you are passionate about this because of one thing you just read, which is an advocacy piece - it is not a "study" or a review article - it is an advocacy piece. It is a reliable source for what those two guys think. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that was my impression for a moment but anyway we discuss The Lancet study here not the editorial from TNEJ. I suggest you add something pointing out that the findings are about the food production process then, "spraying wast amounts of chemicals -- which are probably cancer causing, on food crops but lesser amounts are then later consumed by humans". This should go under a section called Food production, for further reading then See also etc. prokaryotes (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The piece in the Lancet is also not a study. It is a summary of a forthcoming monograph by the IARC on glyphosate. Their conclusion of "probable carcinogen" (see again the quote from one of the IARC committee members as to what that means) came out of left field (no other major health authority has said anything like that - they are standing all alone out there with that classification) and nobody understands how they got there; we won't know until they publish the full report. We've gone ahead and included content about that in the glyphosate article, with appropriate context around it. The full IARC monograph will eventually come out (when last I checked they were very behind in publishing them (something like a year) and things will get very interesting when that comes out. So far, no major market regulatory agency has taken any action based on the announcement of the classification and the summary - all the MRLs for glyphosate are unchanged. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what your definition of major authority includes, for me this study comes from a reliable source Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits. I saw the lede from G article and i think it appears well written.prokaryotes (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I will come out and say this since you don't seem to understand how this worls. Pesticides cannot be used on crops unless they are cleared by regulatory authorities with regard to environmental effects, effects on workers while applying and handling them, and effects of food residues. The regulatory authority of every major country in the world has approved glyphosate for use on crop and has established MRLs. The role of the IARC is to provide opinions on things, but what they come out with as zero regulatory authority. No regulatory authority in any major market has changed its MRLs or other glyphosate-related regulation in light of the IARC's announcement of the new classification and publication of their summary. Nothing has changed in the real world. Advocates who hate pesticides and GM crops have been going crazy since March when the announcement was made (you are way behind the curve), but nothing has changed in any major market (yet) in reaction to the new classification. No other major scientific or medical body has come out in support of the IARC finding. Things are up in the air right now. Two things are clear - the IARC is away out there on its own, and advocates continue to make hay. So there is nothing - nothing - new in the NEJM editorial. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a nice synopsis, but doesn't change the facts of coverage in reliable sources. If you do not want to include the content here on this page, then just say it, or say what you consider acceptable. Above is everything in those regards, no need to create more wall of text. prokaryotes (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice that above you claim that no other authority made similar claims. However, there are other authorities, i.e. American Cancer Society or the EPA. prokaryotes (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What you are calling "a nice synopsis" is summarizing the reliable sources, which is what we do to determine WEIGHT, per the NPOV policy. You don't edit in a complex topic by picking up on a single source and running around Wikipedia shoving it into every article you can find. Of the sources you bring there, ACS is just reporting the IARC classification. The EPA site is reporting their finding of not carcinogenic. Please read the sources you bring. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that the Perspective article in NEJM is a good source to use to include a very brief statement in the controversies section that explains the connection between glyphosate and genetically modified food, as that is the main point of that NEJM Perspective, and i think it is a reliable source to indicate that it is a controversy. Note that i don't consider it a reliable source to establish any facts on the controversy itself, but only to establish that there is controversy surrounding it. Note that there has also been a lot of backlash against that letter in NEJM as well, and one of those could be cited perhaps. SageRad (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I count 4 editors who are for a mention and 1 who does not say so explicit. Therefore i ask you as uninvolved in this edit so far to go ahead and add a mention. You can use above dif which contains the main reference and i do not object to the mention of the TEMJ addition, seems to fit very well. Maybe Jytdog wants to add his addition about the findings.prokaryotes (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not determined by counting "likes" Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

So what do you think then, what is your opinion, i.e. Where, how and what should be included? Notice that we need DRN if you cannot answer these questions or object to a general brief mention. If you object, you object to a reliable source with enough coverage in secondary sources. Also if you cite MeDRS, it would help if you could point out how food is applied to MEDRS.prokaryotes (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding to the sentence in "Controversies" that begins "Other concerns include..." the phrase "... and changes in exposure to pesticides brought about by herbicide-tolerant GMO crops." I'll hold off from adding that in, as i think it's better to discuss it here first, on an article of this nature, especially given that Jytdog seems to have some concerns about it. I think that the brief mention of this as one aspect of controversy would be prudent, and citing that Perspectives letter in NEMJ seems like it would source that as being a concern. Other sources would argue in the other direction, that glyphosate is less toxic than herbicides it may have replaced (such as the article titled "Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide") to provide a counterpoint if desired. I notice that there is a breakaway article called Genetically modified food controversies that should contain this topic in more depth if it's deemed important. SageRad (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I second and fully endorse SageRad's proposal and evenhanded approach. Bravo! Jusdafax 23:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• The editorial does not appear to meet WP:MEDRS and therefore dserves no WP:WEIGHT because it is not a high quality source for including in this article for any medical-related commentary (i.e. suggesting or implying GMOs may not be safe for consumption, etc). Certainly we need to find higher quality sources for any health related claims or implications. Yobol (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The NEMJ letter would not be used as a source for any health claims. It would be as a source to show that this is a controversial aspect of the topic of genetically modified food. I just wondered, myself, how other controversies are sourced in the Controversies section and i see that some are not sourced, while others are sourced to statements or documents that -- like the NEMJ letter -- voice the view that there is something to be concerned about. SageRad (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice 1) We discuss here primary addition of G is carcinogenic 2) TNEJ editorial indeed fits into the C section since it is about labelling based on the carcinogenic finds 3) The argument with MEDRS here is not valid, since most of the C section is sourced differently. Indeed most references of this article don't use MEDRS sources. There is an editorial we speak of which wants labels and a study widely discussed by the most reliable sources we know. prokaryotes (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yobol reverted the addition of the WHO study and the TNEJ article we discuss, here. He wrote that the mention of this in the controversy section is Undue weight . So first he claims it is against MEDRS, now he cites UNDUE. Since i do not want to edit war over this, maybe someone else will readd it. Notice that i will post RFC/DRN if we can not resolve the content dispute here. prokaryotes (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this today. We mention pesticide residues in the Controversies article, and I think that discussion could use a bit more fleshing out, there. Once that is done, we can see if it rises to the lead of that article. The Controversies section here is basically the lead of that article, per WP:SYNC, so then it would come over here. I will work on that over the next few days. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I dont see this source in the discussion [19]], but I might have missed it. Perhaps it might be helpful in some way since its from the WHO. AlbinoFerret 01:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, back in March, the IARC announced that they had classified glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen". They did that two ways - by publishing a summary of their forthcoming monograph in the Lancet which is discussed above, and they put out a press release. You linked to the press release. The full monograph itself hasn't published yet, and probably won't publish for about a year, based on their backlog. Jytdog (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• WHO Study Notice above Jytdog mentions farm workers. Here is a secondary source, "This decision on glyphosate was based mostly on research done in animals, with studies finding links between glyphosate and tumors in rodents. Some studies have also suggested that people who work with glyphosate may be at higher risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The decision on 2,4-D was based mostly on studies done in lab dishes and in animals; this research found that 2,4-D could cause oxidative stress, which is thought to increase cancer risk by damaging DNA." -- Jytdog's version above "..it appears that they are emphasizing epidemiological studies about farm workers who are exposed to glyphosate while they are working" Thus, the editor claim doesn't hold up to secondary sources. prokaryotes (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Updating stats on U.S. acreage that is GM

Jytdog, thanks for noticing the apparent inconsistency when i added the stat on the glyphosate-tolerant trait in corn, that you removed in this diff. The 90% figure was from a 2010 source, and my stat was from the USDA 2015 data. I changed the first stat to specify 2010 as the date, as this data changes annually, and then i added back a breakdown of GE corn acreage in the U.S. by different traits. I think it makes useful information and explains the current state of corn growing in the U.S. very well now. Thanks for noting the inconsistency before. SageRad (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC regarding WHO study

Recently a study by the WHO found that the herbicide glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. This is also covered at the glyphosate article, now there are new calls for labelling GMOs (Secondary source in the mainstream media) based on this study. Since this article here is about GMOs and controversies -- including labelling, it seems perfectly fine to include the info. User Yobol removed the addition and claims it is WP:Undue (Weight). Above 4 editors agreed to include the findings, 2 (Jytdog and Yobol) cite that the source does not meet WP:MEDRS, however as pointed out the content is unrelated to MEDRS, doesn't gives any health advice, and is covered by reliable secondary sources. (Nature Science, The New England Journal of Medicine, in the mainstream media). prokaryotes (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Summary We discuss this edit. prokaryotes (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Support inclusion - per Prokaryotes. Claims of Undue Weight are unconvincing and in my view approach disruptive. The material is factual, relevant to the article, and frankly, long overdue. Jusdafax 00:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Premature and aggressive RfC. This article is not about the controversies. This article is about GM food; it has a WP:SUMMARY section on Controversies taken from the lead of the Genetically modified food controversies article, per WP:SYNC. OP seems to have read one article today and is now on fire to force content about it into WP, but appears to know almost nothing about this topic, or this article, or how the related WP articles are knit together. A section on glyphosate per se is not appropriate in this article which is about GM food per se. Further content on glyphosate and other residues in/on GM food is probably relevant in the associated Genetically modified food controversies article; if is rises to the importance of being in the lead there, it can come into the WP:SUMMARY section on Controversies that is in this article, per WP:SYNC. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of perception issue by editor Jytdog, in the past hours he frequently makes claims about my edits, calls them passionate, aggressive, threatens me with a ban on my talk page now. Ironically the only aggression i can observe comes from this very editor, who is very active on this and similar pages. He seems to be very close attached to the topic, maybe to close to make an objective judgement. prokaryotes (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The reality is that today you broke 3RR and are trying to force content into this highly controversial article without consensus. If everyone edited this article as you have done today, this article would be a war zone and we would have been at arbcom and under discretionary sanctions ages ago. Your editing is wildly inappropriate on a controversial article like this. So far it is just one day and I hoping that you will calm down and slow down - there is no deadline here. And you barely understand what you are editing about. It is bad on many levels. Please slow down, read more, and talk more. I threatened you with nothing - I told that people who edit aggressively on controversial articles tend to get topic banned. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC) (I did not bring the 3RR case and am striking since this has become a distraction Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC))

Maybe i should just ignore someone who obviously is not even able to count. prokaryotes (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, could you specify the 3 RR's you allege occurred? I am wondering, as i don't see it on first glance when looking at the article's edit history. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to see diffs supporting this charge of a 3RR violation, a blockable offense which Prokaryotes has denied. Charges of this sort should not be cast lightly. Jusdafax 04:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Jytdog has an ongoing history of inaccurate counting - see here[[20]]. Perhaps this is a competency issue?DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems Jytdog struck the 3RR claim, and added some text saying he did not threaten anyone but only commented on Prokaryotes' talk page to the effect that "people who edit aggressively on controversial articles tend to get topic banned", which sounds too much to me like someone receiving a note that says "People who cross certain lines tend to be found in the river with concrete shoes" -- and Prokaryotes seems to have perceived it as a threat, and communication involves the sender and receiver of a message, so at the very minimum, the intent of the communication did not reach the receiver as intended. I've had a similar history of what i would also characterize as threatening language from several editors including Jytdog in the past months. I don't find it helpful. I find it, to the contrary, to be unfriendly and to create a hostile environment. I think that principles and practices can be explained in a positive way, to show an explain how certain ways of editing can be helpful and constructive here, and others are not. I try to do that as well. I try to encourage good dialogue and general civility. I don't think the contentious nature of dialogue on many talk pages is necessary. SageRad (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Doc, you present a disturbing diff that confirms that a serious problem exists with Jtdog's editing behavior. Jtdog's attempt to squelch this Rfc as seen above troubles me, the denial and then retraction in the "Glyphosate" section above that they had never claimed glyphosate was not a herbicide, and the edits made by Jtdog at Prokaryotes' Talk page in the past few days reinforce that. SageRad, I agree that Jtdog uses rhetorical threats that are designed to intimidate yet be plausibly deniable, so much so that I asked him some time back to stay off my Talk page. I have also sought for some time to avoid Jtdog altogether. My patience is now exhausted per WP:BULLY. It's time for some accountability and a discussion of sanctions. Jusdafax 15:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax, I make mistakes sometimes and acknowledge them when I do. As an experienced wikipedian I look for you to be tamping down dramah, not ramping it up. If you cannot see the swarming and aggressive editing going on here in the past few days, I don't know what to tell you. But it may finally bring this suite of articles to arbcom. We have avoided wasting the community's time with that to date, as editors have shown reasonable self-restraint. That seems to be going out the window at this time. I am hoping this bit of storm will pass, however. But again, I look for experienced editors to be tamping down dramah. If you want to open an ANI which would have to be the first step, knock yourself out. I am thinking of doing so, but am hoping we can work things out here and on user talk pages as needed, and get there through reasonable discussion. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your reply to my expressed concerns is a masterpiece. On one hand you speak with the calm voice of reason while at the same time mentioning ANI and even ArbCom. So be it. I'm putting you on formal notice to stop the type of bullying that includes attempts to quash this Rfc, above, and the abusive "warnings" you dispense, including the job you and Kingofaces have done on Prokaryotes' talk page. That stops now. I am warning you with the strongest possible intent. Jusdafax 21:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support with reservation. I hear Jytdog when he says that the Genetically modified food controversies should lead the Controversies section of this article, but on the other hand, i think it matters not where we grow first. What matters is to grow -- to grow more mature, more complete, more measured, more balanced. I think that the labeling of the Organic Consumers Association and the other groups as "advocacy groups" is accurate but uncalled for in this text. They may be advocacy groups, but calling that out in the text seems tendentious to me, as if when we mention Monsanto, we said "the for-profit company who has deceived the public in the past, Monsanto..." It seems to be a loaded epitaph, in other words. As to the inclusion of the IARC monograph summary, it may be WP:UNDUE here in terms of level of coverage in this article, but may be more reasonably integrated as part of the Genetically modified food controversies article, and if it makes it into the lede of that article, then it would be suitable in terms of weight here in the Controversies section of this article. Indeed, i do concur with Jytdog on the recommendation to slow down. Let us frame the relevant questions, and then make the edits after discussing. Let us all be here in dialogue with integrity. SageRad (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Reject. It belongs in Genetically modified food controversies (and Glyphosate). This article is about food. Lfstevens (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The current article version mentions food labels, this article too http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660 (based on the WHO find). I too think that the mentioned articles are the main articles, but recent developments as we do with other data (AAAS directors board opinion) should be part of the article, especially when it comes from an authority such as WHO:prokaryotes (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. This article is on GM food, so going into glyphosate potentially being carcinogenic is a WP:COATRACK and hence undue weight. We've already got the content in the glyphosate article where it belongs until we get the actual report to look over. I still cannot see why there is now such a rush by certain editors to push more advocacy into these articles. I agree that this RfC is extremely premature considering the content was just inserted only a few hours ago with an almost immediate RfC with no discussion about the specific edit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion GMO foods and glyphosate are intricately related, and this finding has been big news - as JusDaFax notes, mention of it here is long overdue. Content can be discussed in greater detail in the daughter article (GMO Controversies). petrarchan47คุก 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support The article mentions in the lead that GMO foods are not any more riskier than non GMO. But a total picture of risk cant be shown without the risk from the pesticide that is used for GMO plants. It comes from one of the highest rated sources we have, the WHO [21]. While a long section may not be appropriate, a few sentence or a small paragraph can be included in the article and a sentence in the lede, once in the article, is appropriate. AlbinoFerret 03:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say a paragraph at the very least is required for balance. The arguments against inclusion are looking increasingly strained. Jusdafax 04:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A small paragraph sounds about right. The risks of GMO food cant be separated from the pesticide that they use when it is found that it is probably a carcinogen. There is no safe level of a carcinogen to my knowledge. AlbinoFerret 05:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The WHO source has indicated briefly that the potential carcinogenicity is at worker level exposure, not in consuming the food itself. We'll know more on those details when the actual report comes out, which is why the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DEADLINE are being mentioned here so much. Additionally, there is no "safe" level of anything. Water is technically a carcinogen, so it's all a matter of relative risk. We don't know if the carcinogenicity is equivalent to say 1 minute out in the sun or 12 hours a day for your whole life. Again, we'll find out more later, but that's for the scope of other articles such as glyphosate specifically with the information we currently have. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I linked directly to a WHO document above, not a news story. You cant separate GMO food, from the pesticide that is the main reason GMO's are used. There is still a risk. A mention of the available information can be included WP:DEADLINENOW and WP:NOTPAPER. AlbinoFerret 05:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I was commenting directly on that link. By saying there is a risk from the food perspective, that is WP:OR at this time as explained above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There is still a risk even if its to exposure during the farming and harvesting of it. This article is titled "Genetically modified food" not "Genetically modified food when eaten". AlbinoFerret 06:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Which is original research on your part again as described above. Please stick to sources and discussion of content and sources. As for article scope, it sounds like you're looking for Genetically modified crops. That article is more about the crops themselves and how they are grown, while this article is about them after they are harvested and switch from crop to food product. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The History and Process section cover food production and lab development. Herbicide is mentioned 5 times, and Glyphosate is mentioned 4 times in the article. Hence, this article is not only about the foods, but also about the growing of foods. prokaryotes (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Here again I agree with Prokaryotes and AlbinoFerret and support their statements. Jusdafax 13:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per arguments made above by those who have called for supporting inclusion. David Tornheim (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. This is an article about general issues about genetically modified foods as a whole. It is more appropriate for glyphosphate or the more specialized genetically modified food controversies. It is not appropriate and WP:UNDUE to discuss all level of s controversies of specific GMOs here, as a proper, duely weighted, discussion would take up a disproportionate area of this article. Put another way, if we are to discuss the WHO report, we would also have to discuss every other major study on glyphosophate for due weight as well, as well as every other major report of every other controversy because to include the one WHO report here without including the others would be an attempt to highlight just one side of one small part of the GM food issue. Yobol (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. To cram in material on every topic that is tangentially related to any aspect of an article, when that topic has its own article, is characteristic of novices and is categorically unencyclopaedic. For references to such topics we have a facility called linking (which in this case would be entirely appropriate and informationally adequate wherever glyphosate tolerance is mentioned in this article). This article is about Genetically modified food; Genetically modified food controversies and Glyphosate are separate and different topics. Otherwise, why stop here at the glyphosate controversy? Put in a section on glyphosate, its chemical structure, history, and pharmacology, in fact generally duplicating the glyphosate article; add a section on WHO and another one on cancer. Surely everyone reading an article on Genetically modified food will be far too impatient to see data on those topics, to be willing to click on a link? And maintenance of all the articles that contain duplicated data will be no problem at all every time there are changes or new material, right? JonRichfield (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the article has a controversy section, it seems odd to not mention the WHO study. The thing is that the current controversy section and the new content overlap, per secondary sources. Hence, readers will just wonder why we don't mention it here. prokaryotes (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Text about conflict of interest study

User Prokaryotes added reference to a study about conflict of interest within GMO research, here. I've never seen that study before, and i'm glad to learn about it. User Kingofaces43 revised the text here with the reason stated "Not quite what the study says if someone really wants to be citing it here" and changed the text about it to:

Other concerns include research outcomes being affected by general conflict of interest, but there is no evidence of study outcomes being affected specifically by financial conflict of interest.

I have an issue with the phrase "there is no evidence", as it implies that there is no evidence in the universe for this. That may or may not be true, but it's not supported by the article in question. Also, i looked up the paper and read it, and found that the results do show COI correlated strongly with outcomes of studies, when looked at through author affiliation with industry. Their sample size was rather small and only 6 of the 94 studies they surveyed had industry financial sponsorship. 5 of those 6 showed favorable results for GMOs but the sample was too small for statistical significance. On author affiliation, however, their results were in fact striking, and showed industry affiliation correlated to positive results with p<0.001. Therefore, i changed the text to:

One study did not show statistically significant evidence of study outcomes being affected specifically by sponsorship conflict of interest, but did find author affiliation conflict of interest to be strongly correlated to study outcome, concluding that "articles where a COI was identified show a tendency to produce outcomes favorable to the associated commercial interests."

If we want to truly be accurate about what the study says, this is accurate. They clearly stated the quote as their "main finding".on page 201, directly under the heading "Discussion". The previous text did not represent the study's results accurately. SageRad (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Like in the title, this should be mentioned "conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks".prokaryotes (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good work, SageRad. I applaud the study, the initial post by Prokaryotes, and your careful effort and final text. Given the colossal amount of money at stake in this effort, and human nature being what it is, the results of the study don't come as a surprise, and I support inclusion without reservation. Jusdafax 13:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Notice that User Kingofaces43 is making false accusations about my edits on my talk page now in regards to my edits here. Maybe the editor should not edit here, when he has obvious issues to understand Wikipedia guidelines or study results. prokaryotes (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, please use the article talk page appropriately per WP:FOC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)SageRad, we cite reviews in Wikipedia's voice barring disputing secondary sources. That is why "no evidence" was used. Also keep in mind we don't engage in original research by critiquing studies.

That being said, the other side of the study is the "professional" COI. About half of those COIs were compositional studies. Those are often products that have already undergone in-house testing where negative results end in the project ending and never going to the independent review stage. That inherently biases the likelihood of positive results in those kinds of studies without some malicious assertion (i.e. correlation doesn't equal causation, especially when you miss important variables). Account for those types of studies and the p values can shift quite a bit towards insignificance. Those are the grumblings I've heard in the scientific community as well about the study. How Wikipedia handles this kind of source is interesting though because you can have the scientific community largely not cite it as legitimate, say it's not valid in some aspects, but not bother commenting on it in the literature. That happens in WP:FRINGE topics by definition, but it's an odd scenario for us here when a meta-analysis has potential issues in that fashion since we tend to take them at face value as secondary sources. It's really a higher level meta discussion for elsewhere since we aren't using the source for anything else right now, but just something to be aware of. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your assumptions about the study results are speculations. We report the results of the study, not what you allege is a study bias or not legitimate. prokaryotes (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I made no assertion that we would be adding content based on what I said, but they are more than speculations since there is discussion out there on it. Please slow down and read my post again as I very clearly stated "we don't engage in original research by critiquing studies" when it comes to adding content itself. SageRad simply posted part of the criticism out there on the study as background(which you didn't go after as "speculation"), so I provided some of the rest for background and thoughts for things to keep an eye out for as editors in the future (i.e., scientists just not acknowledging problematic studies instead of making big headline sources we can use as editors). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I do personally agree with your concerns about the way that other variables may cause a correlation independent of causation (of funding and affiliation to favorable results for the industry). I hear your concerns about the way that the scientific chatter may not make it into reviews on less noted papers. I would love to see a larger sampling with the issues you mention taken into account. Ideally, similar to the concept of twin studies, a researcher would isolate individual papers on a certain topic, in which one was done by industry affiliated researchers, and the other was done by independent researchers, and put them side by side, and compare results. It would take a great deal of interpretive work, but it would be the way to probe this question more accurately. Correlation is not causation, but it is an indicator of possible causation. So much of science, and especially the social sciences (in which this study falls), is interpretive. SageRad (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

On the topic of sourcing a statement like "there is no evidence", i think that we cannot state "there is no evidence" unless we do have a secondary source (review article in the relevant field and topic) stating that there is no evidence. We as Wikipedia editors are not known to be qualified as experts in the relevant field to make that statement, so including it without a secondary source seems to me not supportable by sourcing standards. Better to say nothing than to say a possibly wrong thing. SageRad (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Scope of article

An editor recently reverted an edit here[22] with the edit summary - "article currently focuses on actual food, not things in the pipeline. edit is also inaccurate; companies not countries apply for marketing approval." I was wondering what other editors thought about this. The transgenic fish already exist, the applications have already been filed, so this is all historical.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Doc could you by any chance paste the text of the reference here? Since the source is a book, I am unable to assess it. As for the larger question, this topic is clearly within the scope of the article, in my view. Jusdafax 15:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I also can not get the whole book, but the chapter on Transgenic fish is available in the preview here[23]DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We have a whole article on genetically modified fish as well as AquAdvantage salmon, which is the actual product for which approval is being sought. There is no doubt about that and it has been discussed in the NY Times and other mainstream sources. Yes, it is real.

There were two problems with DrChrissy's edit. The proposed text was "In 2014, it was reported that Canada, China, Cuba and the United States had applied for approval of transgenic fish as food" Per my revert this is garbled nonsense, as countries don't apply to themselves for regulatory approval; companies apply to countries' regulatory agencies. More importantly, this article is generally about actual genetically modified food. The GM fish may never be approved and may never actually become food. Nonetheless, the article already says " but a GM salmon had been awaiting regulatory approval[85][86][87] since 1997.[88]" so the content is redundant in any case. I think we included content about this based on some passion in the past... i could do it with it not being here at all and initially forgot it was.

There are zillions of potential GM food products that have been created and developed to one extent or another by university labs and by companies; there would be no end to the scope of this article if we were to discuss all of them.

Again, back when we set up this article and the rest of the suite as it is currently organized (which is under discussion for change), the purpose of this article was to create something that had never existed in Wikipedia before - namely one place where people could come and see what food in their grocery stores was actually genetically modified. We can always agree to change the scope, but why anybody would want Wikipedia to be less useful to helping people identify GM food, especially in the US where it is not labelled, is quite beyond me. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC) (redact to fix error i made Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC))

• Comment A brief mention that GM animals are also used for other things then food is an addition to the article, and your edit made that clear. Also i see no reason to remove the mention of fish, something which have been widely reported in the media, on grounds that there may or may not be other studies. prokaryotes (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Using your logic, we should delete the entire section on GM animals...how would that look to the readership..."Wikipedia has nothing to say on what might become one of the most important areas of biotechnology in the very near future". By the way, with reference to finding what GM food is available in the store, why then do we bother with History, Process and Controversies sections - this article should simply be a list.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Read my comment again, i have nothing against the edit you made.prokaryotes (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Prokaryotes - the comment was directed at Jytdog. I thought the indentation showed that.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do realize that you are talking "at" me. For pete's sake I just realized that the article already says " but a GM salmon had been awaiting regulatory approval[85][86][87] since 1997.[88]" So the content you added was also redudant. Which is an even better reason why your edit was not a good one. Yes that section does get a bit CRYSTALBALLy and I think we included it because of some strong passion around that in the past. There is no food from GM animals on the market now. I would actually be fine with deleting it but I doubt that would stick. Since the content is already there, this section is really fruitless. I've redacted my statement above [User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm wondering if the definition of this page should be limited to those things currently in the grocery store. If i were to come to this article as a non-involved person, i would think that the article, because of the title, would include the scope of things likely to enter the food supply in the future, if they're deemed of interest and significance by reliable sources. We use reliable source to determine significance of possible future events, so we're not operating a crystal ball, as Wikipedia editors. If coverage is significant on a topic, and it fits within the article scope as perceived by the public, then i think it merits a mention in the article.

On the topic of genetically modified salmon, i do find some notable recent coverage here:

• NPR story on GM salmon (mentions the grocery store concept in the first paragraph, by the way)
• Genetic Literacy Project article on GM salmon (says that the Biotechnology Industry Association and companies spent $4.1 million this year promoting GM salmon)

If it's noted in mainstream and pro-GMO press, then it seems suitable to mention briefly on this page, so that readers will know about the whole topic of genetically modified food, including what is in the pipeline for the near future with noted significance by mainstream press. SageRad (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material on GM patent issues by Jytdog

Jytdog:

You deleted recently added material on patent issues relating to GM animals used to produce biopharmaceuticals. I think that was a mistake, perhaps induced by your excessive enthusiasm in favor of all things GMO. [;-)] You said your reason was that this is an article about GM foods. However, there is a section Genetically_modified_food#GM_food_animals in the article about "other GM uses" and it specifically discusses pharming. The deleted material was about that subject (pharming) and immediately followed a discussion in the article of pharming to "produce recombinant antithrombin, an anticoagulant protein drug." It was sourced. It was NPOV (gave both sides).

I think that the deleted material is directly relevant to that discussion. Is the GMO antithrombin and/or the process for it legally protectable or is it open to competitive imitation by anyone who pleases? Only a person so dedicated to Monsanto's view that nobody should ever mention an issue that might impair the furthering of Monsanto's proprietary GMO rights could think that a discussion of whether the law will or won't protect a GMO company from poachers should be quashed.

Rather than start an edit war over this with multiple reverts, why don't we open a discussion on this talk about whether and where the deleted material should be presented in Wikipedia? I would be happy to abide by the consensus, but I object to your arbitrary, bullying, unilateral approach to whatever you disagree with. You are just delete-happy. Why can't you talk things over first? You are not the only one in WP entitled to have an opinion. Why don't you see if you are a loner or are in the mainstream consensus before reacting?

I therefore suggest that you or I undo your deletion, that we invite a discussion here, and that we abide by the consensus. If that doesn't suit you, perhaps we should take this further elsewhere.

  PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

here is the edit. Thanks for opening a discussion instead of edit warring, per WP:BRD. Yes, that content is way, way out of scope, and was also wrong, and was also WP:OR. We can discuss scope issues here if you like. If you want to discuss the content itself, I opened a discussion at Talk:Pharming_(genetics). Crazy editing going on here over the past couple of days. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The editor will just drag us now into another lengthly discussion, where he will explain how competent he is. I just begun looking over recent edits of editor Jytdog and it appears that he edits with a strong POV, additionally he regular shows signs of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, WP:BULLY, and disruptive editing. Just look at his revert history on this page or similar pages. Not exactly sure how to proceed but this might require admin attention.prokaryotes (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, i think that comment is out of line here. We can comment on behaviors of editors, but we cannot "poison the well" by predicting behaviors of editors in the way you did. I know of Jytdog's tendencies, and of his history with you, but even so, i treat each new discussion with the assumption of good faith, until there is a problematic behavior.

I personally agree with Jytdog here that the topic of pharming should be touched on in this article on GM food, but should not get much weight because it is indeed out of scope. Pharma is not food, in the common parlance, and should be covered in its own article. SageRad (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Pharma is currently mentioned in the article and i was referring to that, and i am referring above to the various reverts Jytdog makes. Basically if there is data about GMO food and patents then this belongs in this article. Though, it is not exactly clear from the edit history. Jytdog started another discussion here. prokaryotes (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::::In continuity with my revert, and per the discussion above that drugs/other things are not food, I removed the mention of pharming. It is off-topic, and is clearly a magnet for yet more offtopic content. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, here you removed all reference to Pharming_(genetics) in this article. I support your position that pharming is not within the scope of this article for coverage, but i do think this article should mention pharming in that section, so the reader will know of an adjacent and closely related field of technology. Articles in Wikipedia do benefit from mentioning related areas of interest, and linking to the appropriate Wikipedia article on the adjacent topic. I think we need one sentence to mention the concept and link to the article. What do you think? SageRad (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Jytdog thinks the material he deleted is about whether animals can be patented (as with the oncomouse). But it isn't. The deleted material is about whether the product and process of pharming can be patented. Let's get that straight first. Then let's figure out if that is relevant to Wikipedian concerns and if so, where it should be presented. I hope to see some consensus emerge. I also hope Jytdog will get the idea that he should talk things over first before deleting. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the notion to discuss first before deleting against consensus. Though, patent issues about pharmic belong in the pharming article. However, pharming should be mentioned here,, and was mentioned for several month, until now when Jytdog started to delete stuff without discussion, again.prokaryotes (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that we should simply add back a reference to Pharming (genetics) and call it a day. I'll do it. SageRad (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The content was perfect, brief and explained the term. Just a link is not the best option, readers might think it has to do with farming. prokaryotes (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I submit that both the issue of the content itself, and the preemptory removal without discussion are on the table here. In the Rfc section above, I strongly warned Jytdog just a few hours ago about his abrasive editing style. He chooses to continue editing here with methods that are arguably under the jurisdiction of WP:OWN. A cursory look at the material added and the referencing, along with PraeceptorIP's edit history, gives me confidence that they are acquainted with the topic and the literature. Per an emerging consensus, I support the readdition of the removed material, regardless of Jytdog's issues, which are increasingly desperate and disruptive. Jusdafax 02:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sage added something very close, but without the references. prokaryotes (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the removed content is not within the scope of this article. The content was not about GM food. It was about GM products, but they were non-food products. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Half the article is about growing and development of the food. Secondary sources frequently report about farming practices and food, because both is intervened. prokaryotes (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the removed material absolutely should be included. Both GM food crops and GM food animals are used for pharming and are therefore well within the scope. Not mentioning this is like not mentioning "milk" in the [cow] article. I also agree with Jusdafax that the editing behaviour of Jytdog on this page needs looking at. This "delete first, ask questions later" approach is not limited to this page or related pages, but he even followed me to magnetic senses in animals to make this disruptive edit.[24] He is definitely showing WP:OWN here.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog is going wild atm, readding his OR material to the lede, again without discussion. This editor is a good example for WP:OWN prokaryotes (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy of Harper reference

User talk:Yobol You recently corrected a reference I included in the article (Harper et al., 2009) - thanks very much for this. I found this article using Google Scholar and used the "cite" function to copy and paste the in-line reference. The Google Scholar citation is -

Harper, G. S., Brownlee, A., Hall, T. E., Seymour, R., Lyons, R., & Ledwith, P. (2009). Global progress toward transgenic food animals: a survey of publicly available information. St. Lucia (Qld.): CSIRO Livestock Industries. Online verkrijgbaar van http://www. foodstandards. gov. au/_srcfiles/Transgenic% 20Livestock% 20Review% 20CSIRO% 20FI NAL% 2012Dec20031. pdf. Toegang verkregen op, 9.

I can understand why you changed the publisher as this is in the document, but I do not understand how you found the different publication date (2003 c.f. 2009). The date is particularly important because I would probably not have used the source if I had known it was 12 years old rather than 6! (If anyone wishes to delete the source because of this, I will not complain.) Please understand, I am not complaining here, I am simply trying to find out if other tools are out there for checking reference details, and perhaps we should be checking the details provided by Google Scholar.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I read the document, and noted that all of the references were 2003 and earlier, then googled it myself to see if it had been published elsewhere. Researchgate is a repository, so google scholar may be going off of when it was first placed there, rather than the original publication date. Yobol (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks very much for this. A warning for all of us that use Google Scholar.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Readding of OR references

Recently i removed references which are not related to the content, in this dif. There is a opinion blog, a page which requires register/login, and references which do not contain info related to the paragraph. Additional i moved the WHO reference to the end of the paragraph and added the part about crossbreeding from that site. Jytdog and Yobol reverted these changes, back to what amounts to OR. prokaryotes (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"OR references" makes no sense. The link to the AMA report was just broken. I fixed it. Good link is here Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The NRC, the EU paper, both show not what the paragraph claims, see edit summary if you once would care to bother. Also suddenly you except opinion blogs, but elsewhere you do not even except WHO or Jorunal publications. Your judgement is obviously very one sided.prokaryotes (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The "scientific consensus statement" and its sourcing has all been under discussion for a long time. We just had a huge RfC over some of this with many, many participants, and no one else - no one else - has edited that as aggressively as you. Your edits are inappropriate on a controversial article. Again, if everyone edited as aggressively as you this article would have been at arbcom ages ago and under discretionary sanctions. You are showing no self-restraint here. Again please read WP:Controversial articles which provides very good guidance. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Again read the edit summary or what i wrote above. Unless you specifically address my edits i have to ignore you.prokaryotes (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)