Talk:Genetically modified food controversies

RfC of interest

Editors here might find this RfC of interest too, Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#RfC_Is_including_a_quotation_which_describes_GM_food_as_.27poison.27_acceptable.

Skepticism and controversy in Europe

I've enjoyed reading this article, which is well-referenced, and covers the American scene very well. But things are very different in Europe, and the European experience has been glossed over in this article. A lot is made of "objectivity", mentioned twice in the lead section, which is actually a complex epistomological issue. Ethics, the precautionary principle, and policy-making process seem to be issues of more relevance from what I have read elsewhere. Albert Teich has said:

"The controversy over genetically modified organisms (GMOs), especially in foods, relates largely to the regulation of technology: How certain must one be to take regulatory action, especially when that action is costly? Guided by the precautionary principle, which holds that 'when an activity threatens harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically,' most European nations assert that GMOs should not be allowed in foods. United States regulators, arguing that there is no persuasive scientific evidence that GMOs are harmful, and citing many benefits, have generally rejected the European position."

-- Albert H. Teich (Editor), Technology and the Future, Wadsworth, 12th edition, 2013.

Is there really "general scientific agreement" about GM food? Also, it is a mistake to characterise activists who take direct action as vandals. -- Johnfos (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Johnfos:: You are correct that the article is deeply flawed in covering Europe. Please be bold and make changes to correct those and other problems. This is something that I tried to do back in February 2015 (for example: here), but a single editor who wrote the material and controlled this and mos of the other major GMO pages prevented any changes to his writing as I described here. That editor is now banned from this and other GMO articles.

Please note that if there is any opposition to your changes, do not edit war; there is a 1RR restriction as Discretionary Sanctions on this article per this this recently closed ArbCom decision. I suggest you skim the lengthy case if you have time to see how this article came to be as it now is.

-David Tornheim (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I've raised this in the past also, the precautionary principle, Cartagena Protocol, Codex Alimentarius, in the context of EU v US regulatory mechanisms and safety testing regimes. Needs addressing here and elsewhere. Semitransgenic _talk. 23:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I've now added a "missing information" tag at the top of the article, as there is much skepticism and controversy in Europe which is not adequately covered, and there is too much focus on the USA, making the article unbalanced. Johnfos (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed

"In the United States GMO labeling is not required by the Food and Drug Administration as long as there are no differences in health, environmental safety, and consumer expectations based on the packaging." 1) "no differences in health, environmental safety, consumer expectations based on the packaging." Clarification needed, highly ambiguous. As is, reads like health and environmental safety are based on packaging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.66.121 (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of DS and 1RR

Arb has imposed discretionary sanctions and 1RR on all GMO related articles. I notice that Jps has made 2 reverts of the same material. Consider this your notification. I'll post on your talk page as well. Minor4th 16:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I see you've already been notified. Minor4th 16:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Public Perception

I undid this revision diff for the following reasons: "Original sentence was better; we can discuss the source on talk page. New language is one author's opinion--not appropriate.". --David Tornheim (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Why did you replace something from Scientific American from something from a self-published partisan website, stated in Wikipedia's own voice. Looks severely NNPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is a better source for the original sentence, which is something that is very commonly argued. The material you added was the opinion of one person who is obviously pro-GMO, who in the same article made the specious argument, "Humans have been genetically modifying foods through selective breeding for more than 10,000 years." Let us look for better RS that supports the original sentence. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I added the template "better source" needed here. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Wisconsin study

I apologize for parachuting in here without studying this article methodically top to bottom and reading the refs, but I wonder what is the connection between the sentence at the bottom of Wisconsin study which says

Crops and animals under development express traits aimed at directly increasing yield.[380] The closest to market is salmon that produces an added growth hormone gene that doubles growth rates.[381]

and the rest of the text is? Is it part of the study? Is modified salmon still under development? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

After 17 years of review (or maybe "review"), the FDA approved Genetically modified salmon for sale in 2015. Lfstevens (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference to the text: "In May 2003, the US and twelve other countries filed a formal complaint..."

Here's a reference to the text: "In May 2003, the US and twelve other countries filed a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization that the EU was violating international trade agreements, by blocking imports of US farm products through its ban on GM food." --Tikmok (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Rao, VS (2015). Transgenic Herbicide Resistance in Plants. CRC Press. p. 351. ISBN 978-1-4665-8738-0.

Scientific consensus?

Most GMF articles on WP, like this one, contain the statement that: there is "general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from these crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food". Often this is in the first few paragraphs of the article. But is this "scientific consensus" statement really true, or is the situation more complex?

The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility WP article says this: "In 2015 ENSSER published a study assessment in regards to GMO safety, and concluded that there is no scientific consensus on the relative safety of GM food, and 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". -- Johnfos (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read the GMO Talk page archives, this has been discussed ad nauseam. Alexbrn (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but if discussion has stalled and questions are still being raised, perhaps help is to be found in the social science literature on analysing scientific controversies. See, for example, the recent book The Controversy Manual by Brian Martin (professor), which is freely available online, and in part discusses GMOs. Johnfos (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it stalled, but resulted in the mother of all RfCs. The current article(s) reflect the hard-fought consensus, I believe. Alexbrn (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Similar to climate change denial, opposition to the scientific consensus falls under WP:FRINGE. We generally mention the a fringe viewpoint when it comes prominent in controversies as outlined in the guideline also being careful not to give that viewpoint undue weight. At this point though, there isn't anything that has changed the scientific consensus in the literature. If it does, we'll see it from WP:MEDRS sources such as international organizations on par with the WHO as opposed to advocacy groups like ENSSER. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Johnfos, one way that I find useful to think about the source material is that there is a significant gap between the actual scientific literature, and the lay literature. Unquestionably, there are widespread perceptions in the lay public of problems with GM food. But if one examines the source material that comes from mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific publications (and ENSSER tends to be more like an advocacy group than an actual scientific one), there really is this consensus, even though there is no corresponding consensus in the lay public. Also, in addition to that epic RfC that Alexbrn mentioned, there has recently been an epic ArbCom case, that lead in part to the edit notice that appears every time you access the editing screen on this page and talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The consensus related to GMO foods is substantially weaker, and narrower, than that related to climate change. The constant comparisons to climate change and calls to WP:FRINGE are not constructive. The issues are unrelated. The science is unrelated. The only purpose these references seem to serve is as an attempt to discredit the organizations and scientists who hold the minority view, and drive off editors who make good faith attempts to reflect a significant minority viewpoint. Dialectric (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ouch! Speaking only for myself, I have no interest in ever driving off good faith editors. As I see it, GM skepticism is a majority viewpoint in the general public, but a minority viewpoint among scientists who have examined the issue. And as I see it, the problems in editing arise when editors try to present scientific minority views as having greater weight than what the source material supports. And purely within the scientific source material, it really is an extreme minority view, and arguably an even weaker one than climate denial. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• As the OP points out, it is more complex than saying there's a general scientific consensus of GMO food safety. While the evidence may be lacking that the actual GMO foods are harmful, there are a number of studies that have concluded that there are health risks associated with exposure to the chemical formulations used with GMO crops. That's in no way a fringe view. And there are no long term studies on human health effects. I think it's misleading to say there is general scientific consensus that GMO foods are safe. Minor4th 20:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)