Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms

First RfC, problems summarizing the WHO

Petrarchan47, do you have a link to the first RfC? I have only a vague memory of it, and that there was something to do with the WHO not being summarized accurately. Once again, in the current options, the WHO has not been summarized accurately, so this RfC risks repeating the same errors. But I want to check that I'm not misremembering. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there have been a number of them; I'm not sure which one Petrarchan47 is talking about. A quick search turns up this and this. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, thank you. It was this 2015 RfC that I was thinking of. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I added a link to the first RfC as the second RfC the The Wordsmith listed was already on this page. With respect to the WHO, the consensus from that RfC was,

"Broad scientific consensus" was most strongly supported by evidence that large-scale medical and empirical research organizations such as the AAAS, WHO, and AMA have issued statements that are consistent with the general opinion of the scientific community.

This was a good reminder to include that RfC to show more of the history in this topic and arguments that have been covered already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

"Other comments" section

I'd like for the supervising admins to please take a look at the section that was created under "Other comments". I'm worried that this can be an invitation to threaded discussion. I think it might be perfectly OK for that editor's comments to simply be in a section for that editor, same as for the other respondents. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, and just said as much, though I responded anyway. It's not a good idea though. Capeo (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Creation of this RfC (rules, organization, timing, etc.)

The wording of the rules, questions, timing, etc. for this RfC were made in these two places:

• Archive 1 (History)
• User_talk:The_Wordsmith/Archive_6#GMO_RfC

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Open discussion or comments directly about this RfC:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Genetically_modified_organisms
• User_talk:The_Wordsmith#What_is.3F
• User_talk:The_Wordsmith#GMOs
• User_talk:Coffee#Small_edit
• User_talk:Coffee#Redactions

--David Tornheim (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Introduction

Coffee, The Wordsmith: Please can we have a reasonably short (one paragraph, perhaps even just one sentence) introduction for this RfC, to be placed immediately after the {{rfc}} template. Based upon this edit, the introduction should be signed by The Wordsmith and timestamped 18:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC).

To see why such an introduction is necessary, have a look at how it presently appears at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology - basically, Legobot (talk · contribs) has copied everything from the {{rfc}} template down to the first timestamped signature. Most of that consists of rules of conduct and other procedures, and the dire consequences which will befall those who step out of line. We don't need those on the RfC listing pages, what we need is a précis description of the problem.

When this introduction is added, please also remove the |rfcid= parameter. This will cause Legobot to issue a new rfcid, but it is the only known way of getting Legobot to remove the RfC from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted, a page which should normally be empty. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Ouch. Yeah, that's a reasonable request. I'll take care of it, give me an hour or so to caffeinate. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that looks much better. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This amused me.

In a discussion that has at times been very fraught, I'd like to add a very unimportant note of levity – this now-reverted edit by an IP: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Notifications

Do we still want to add this to WP:CENT? Not sure how the decision on the watchlist notification ended up, but if it goes ahead it needs to be requested at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. AIRcorn (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. @The Wordsmith: @Coffee: It would be very helpful if one of you would add this to CENT when you have the time. Perhaps we should do the watchlist notice for 7 days a little later in the 30-day period, maybe around the middle, so that we do it after there is some equilibrium in new proposals being added. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to suggest a secondary RfC listing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Aircorn, @Tryptofish: I added it to CENT using what I think is a catchy link title. That should attract some attention and get some more opinions here. As to publishing this elsewhere, I am considering adding this to watchlist-details near the final week if we don't have enough input at that point. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Warnings in Notifications

As a nitpick, I think that the small-font warning about the DS might scare users away instead of attracting them. Please let me suggest: "Warning:" → "Note:" --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If anyone has reason to believe their edits will be subject to sanctions, they likely shouldn't be editing. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

That's true, but I'm talking about human nature. If I saw something that said "Warning", my first reaction would be to move on to another entry on the list, not look more closely. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

And "Note" conveys the same information. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Tryptofish and, I believe Aircorn that the warnings should not be on the marketing for this RfC, and I agree it will scare others away. Besides, editors see the warning as soon as they try to edit; They cannot miss it. Warnings are not very inviting. Like "Warning: No Trespassing signs" or "Warning: toxic materials" or "Warning: Swimmers have drowned here", etc. Warnings often mean there is something to avoid. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• I want to say thank you to David and Aircorn for their comments in this section. I really do believe that, because we want to encourage as many users as possible to contribute positively to this RfC, we should not be warning them about coming here. I understand Coffee's concern that we obviously don't want anyone coming here to make edits contrary to sanctions, but I think everyone sees the rules as soon as they arrive at the RfC page. I'd like some second opinions. Therefore, I want to ping @The Wordsmith:, as the other supervising admin, and @Casliber:, because of his comments in the earlier, archived discussion about announcements. What do you think about either changing "Warning:" to "Note:" in the link at WP:CENT, or deleting the word, or deleting the entire mention of sanctions? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with Warning, but I have no objection against Note. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, go with 'note'. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I trust nobody will mind if I go ahead and make the edit now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Lack of Notification

I am confused as to why these notifications did not go out concurrently to when the RfC was launched:

• talk pages of the affected articles
• talk pages of those who made proposals
• talk pages of those who participated in the Rule-Making phase

and possibly also:

• talk pages of those who had participated in the previous two RfC's on this same matter

I believe this is standard practice, no? This same lack of notification occurred in the rule making phase. In the rule-making phase, I ended up doing the notification, and ArbCom member GorillaWarfare complimented me on this. Will I need to do this again? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw the link from the controversies article and assumed the others had been linked as well. Was probably just an oversight, but the link to this rfc should definitely be added to the rest of the articles under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms#Purpose of this RfC (list of pages). It might also be a good idea to ping or notify the editors who wrote the proposals and have not responded yet (Tsavage, RAMRashan and I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc). I would assume that those of us who participated in the formation of the RFC would still be watching this page or at least know that it was about to be opened soon. Without going through all the edits I can't think of anyone that isn't covered above and hasn't commented on or been made aware of this. Sometimes editors of previous rfc's are notified, but I don't think this is standard practice so am not concerned either way. I say we give some time for the moderators to decide on how to carry out these notifications first before one of us does it. AIRcorn (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

^Thank you for your comments. Though GM controversies is on my watchlist, I overlooked that notice. It is a pleasure to work cooperatively with you even though we sometimes disagree on content decisions. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I posted notifications on WP:AN, WP:RSN, WP:ARCA, and the talkpage of the article that hosted the last RFC. I probably should have done other article talkpages as well, but the thought didn't occur to me. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith would there be any objection to me copying your notification from the controversies page to the other pages this statement is on? AIRcorn (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No objection so I have just added a link to here from the other affected pages. AIRcorn (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about some sources

I want to thank Montanabw for what she has presented in the RfC, particularly with respect to the additional source cited in Proposal 10: [2]. In her comments, she also refers to this study: [3], although it is not cited in any of the proposals. It would be tl;dr for me to discuss this on the RfC page, so I'm posting here. I hope that editors can help me with a focused discussion about sources.

First, I would like to comment on some past discussion of that second, not cited, source. It has been discussed at some length in the past, and I'll link to an analysis that I made of it in evidence in the ArbCom case: [4]. In "Core of the dispute", I referred to "Critics of GMOs typically cite this paper...", meaning this paper, and I describe the affiliations of the authors. They come from groups like ENSSER, that are anti-GMO advocacy groups. I therefore think that it is not a reliable source about scientific consensus, although it may be reliable to source one "side" of the debate. Anyway, it is not cited in any proposal so far.

But about [5] in Proposal 10, I've read the whole paper and looked at who the authors are, and it does seem to me to be a reliable source as of 2013. The authors come from the Defence Food Research Laboratory, [6]. They seem to me to be mainstream. I've just spent a couple of hours (really) looking back through earlier discussions here, going back to before I started editing about this RfC topic, and the only prior discussion I can find of the paper was here: [7]. It was in the previous "no consensus" RfC, and it was dismissed without much examination. One editor mentioned it, and then another editor said it had an extremely low impact factor. In this RfC, I think that My very best wishes made a very helpful comment in his reply to Montanabw. As I said, I read the paper very carefully, and although it does not say that there isn't a scientific consensus, it also doesn't say that there is one. In the "Risks and controversy" section, they start by discussing escape of plants from farmlands, which is off-topic for us here, but they do go on to discuss food health issues in a way that indicates that they do not consider the science to be settled. They also do not seem to indicate that there are any actual documented risks, more like saying there are a lot of potential risks that could emerge with new GMOs, and that these risks need to be tested for, which is in keeping with multiple sources that say new GMOs must be tested case-by-case.

So I am still trying to decide what I think about the Bawa source, and I would welcome comments from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• My thinking is that the Krimsky source was stronger than Bawa, and I haven't really dug into all the other literature reviews and meta-analyses that might be out there. But my take is:

1. The science is still in flux, and a lot of the "there is consensus" sources actually are dated more than 10 years back. I think that looking only at sources published since 2010, we are seeing less certainty.
2. there is a problem when corporate funded sources are viewed as unbiased ("there is a funding effect in science from corporate sponsorship of research. That means that corporate-funded science tends to produce results that are consistent with corporate financial interests.”) but sources with links to anti-GMO sources are viewed as biased. That is inconsistent. Each are biased.
3. I also read up on the Seralini case and "Pusztai affair" and again, it appears that they were being held to a standard that parellel studies that reached opposite conclusions were not held. I favor looking at the pure science and seeing where it leads, but here we have a clear political agenda out there.
4. IN the tone -- and the nastiness -- I am reminded of the old days of the tobacco lawsuits (I'm even old enough to remember cigarette ads on TV) and the tobacco companies used very similar tactics back in the day to argue that their products were harmless.

• In short, I think we are not talking a "consensus" at the level of, say the consensus on climate change. While it is perfectly fair to say there is a majority of studies out there still saying GMOs are OK, I think it is misleading to suggest that the science is settled, when the reality is that it looks like it's getting less settled rather than more settled. I think there is also the possibility that the "majority" are talking "tobacco consensus" here, and it is important that we do not push a POV in either direction. I think that presenting the evidence in a clear manner is important. Montanabw^(talk) 19:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me start by saying that I hope that you didn't mean that my tone was nasty. I find it helpful that you say that you do not regard the Bawa source as being that strong. As for Sheldon Krimsky, I believe that there is no question that his paper should be cited, but I also think that it is significant that he is not in any way a plant scientist nor a toxicologist, and that he is a critic of the scientific establishment. Thus, his views are significant views for our purposes, but he is not the most reliable source for summarizing the views of the scientific community. Indeed, he presents the work that was the center of the Séralini affair as work that significantly challenges the "scientific consensus", when in fact that work was discredited. I disagree with you that Séralini was held to an abnormally high standard; the sources completely contradict that.

I've been spending an awful (and I do mean awful!) lot of time getting into every source that I have found out about, and there are plenty of sources (in Proposal 1: Nicolia (2013), the United Nations (2004), Ronald (2011), Yang and Chen (2016), and Scott (2016)) that say verbatim that there is "a scientific consensus" or "a broad scientific consensus". (And Yang and Chen specifically cite the earlier Domingo paper, and pretty much dismiss it. Only the UN source is pre-2010.) They don't simply say that this is a "majority" view. And every one of these sources is independent of industry. When editors were drafting the early proposals, I was very attentive to excluding any sources written by authors connected to biotech companies. So, although I agree with you that there is a GMO industry (like the tobacco industry) position that is not RS for us, these sources are not driven by the industry. And when I follow the sources chronologically from Domingo to more recently, or looking over time at the AMA sources that go from 2001 to 2012), I see the science becoming more settled, not less settled. So, when I try to evaluate how to assign WP:DUE weight to the Bawa paper, I'm inclined to cite it (as Proposal 1 does in cite # 4), but to weigh it less than the sources I just listed. So I really do read the sources as saying that there is a scientific consensus, and not simply a majority opinion.

Thanks again, because your reply helped me in firming up my own opinion. I think that's how I now view Bawa, but of course it would be interesting to hear from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

In short, Tryptofish, you have been very gracious and I think you are sincerely trying to drill down on this question. While we may be stuck using a phrase such as "scientific consensus", I would definitely hesitate to add too many adjectives to the point that it sounds equivalent to the extremely broad consensus on climate change. I think that caution in phrasing is in order and would urge softer language, and if not "majority," than something like "consensus" minus modifiers, at least (or "important groups foo state that there is a consensus"). Some things, like the animal studies, take a lot of years to replicate, test, and generally assess. The issues with allergans (such as the problem with peanut genes) is something that is widely acknowledged even by strong supporters and though understood, IS an acknowledged concern. In short, my primary concern is a "nothing to worry about here, anyone disagreeing is just a nutcase, now move along..." tone. The reality is that while most studies do not demonstrate a risk, a few do, and many that do have been quite strongly attacked, with some of the most concerning held to a higher standard than the favorable studies. Remember not to fall into the same trap: Of course Krimsky was a critic, a non-critic would have never done the study. But look at it on its own merits; he was doing a metanalysis, not original research; as such he is as much a reliable source as is the UN or the AMA, where I doubt there are many plant scientists, either (LOL). Do not dismiss critics, they could be right. Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that corporate funding is a lot more sophisticated than it was back in the tobacco study days; now days, influence is more likely to be in the form of a large grant to the university to upgrade their lab, or an endowed chair, or a former lobbyist on the university Board of Directors, or something equally divorced from a single particular study: I remember drilling down on research about a different topic (not this one) where I traced the entities thanked in the acknowledgements section and bingo, the corporate funding was basically one "generation" back. Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind words, and also for your own thoughtful examination of the content issues. About Krimsky, I think that Opabinia's analysis on the RfC page is a good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

If we want to invoke corporations, the multi-billion dollar industries like organic and "natural" foods built around making other food sound scary would be a more apt parallel. The tobacco companies did a "good" job of making it seem like the scientific community thought tobacco was safe when the scientific community had actually settled on the opposite for quite some time. We could also compare to oil companies denying the consensus on global warming trying to say the literature is still in flux citing climate change deniers, etc. That's how well public relations can disguise scientific consensus.

In all honestly though, the spectre of corporations doesn't even need to be raised in content discussion with the current sources we're using. That's probably for the best. There are a lot of mistaken personal opinions about funding and academia in agriculture that tend to permeate such content discussions. That's much tougher content to work through than the scope of this RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Domingo

Montanabw Your statement The reality is that while most studies do not demonstrate a risk, a few do is not in alignment with the best MEDRS source we have on the issue of GMO food safety. Domingo (Proposal 1; #4, in "but see also"), is a toxicologist, Editor in Chief of Elsevier*, and has done the most current and inclusive review of GMO feeding studies available. He found that roughly half of peer reviewed studies show "serious cause for concern". MEDRS favors the most recent reviews over all else. Therefore, Domingo and the claim that only half don't show cause for concern is in serious conflict with the idea that there is any agreement within the scientific community. Am I missing something? petrarchan47คุก 21:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

As documented in Proposal 1, cite #4, the Domingo study has been examined by subsequent studies, and the more recent sources pretty much reject what Domingo said. Nevertheless, the Domingo source is a RS, and it is appropriate to include it among the sources that are cited. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

What is your argument that Domingo (and thereby, all of the individual peer reviewed studies he reviewed) has been thoroughly debunked, if that is what you are claiming? Domingo has not been rejected, you making a leap between sources and coming to this conclusion alone. Please see my response to King just below.

Yes, Domingo meets WP:MEDRS, which is a requirement when talking about human health issues. I would agree with including Domingo in your sources, but disagree with not including (rejecting) his findings. Instead, you have added Pamela Ronald to the top sources supporting a consensus; Ronald is a GMO advocate*, and in 2013 had to retract two papers** for mistakes such as mislabeled bacterial strains. Regardless of the state of her reputation as a scientist, her position advocating for the acceptance of GMOs makes her a less than independent source, especially considering the heated debate around this safety claim. WP should not be hosting Ronald's words about GMO's without directly attributing them to her. petrarchan47คุก 05:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

First, please move your post (and mine as well) to the bottom with proper threading as it appears you were trying to reply to Tryptofish after what should be my earlier same level reply. I would do it myself, but that would also change the meaning of part of your post.

As has been mentioned before, Panchin reiterates there is a scientific consensus even after citing Domingo. Domingo's opinions just aren't given weight with respect to the safety consensus by the larger scientific community. As for Ronald, we need to be really careful about WP:BLP here as those retractions where initiated by the authors after finding out someone messed up (i.e., a good retraction) as opposed to cases like Seralini, Wakefield, etc. where the larger scientific community found issues the authors did should have dealt with prior. The former type of retraction tends to show the author has a good reputation as a scientist. I also don't think we're going to be excluding sources or consider them NPOV solely because they take a particular stance on an issue. Experts in science are supposed to do outreach in their field, with TED talks, etc. being pretty high-level outreach. We generally only exclude sources as unreliable or POV when they take a stances that fall into WP:FRINGE territory or fail WP:INDEPENDENT. In this case, Ronald is an independent source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

More specifically, sources that say there is a scientific consensus, such as Panchin, cite Domingo for the controversy amongst the public, but do not weight it at all as something that legitimately contends with the scientific consensus even after acknowledging its presence. If we were talking just reviews alone, that would be enough to dismiss Domingo in relation to scientific consensus, but we also have higher level scientific organizations such as the FAO, WHO, AAAS, etc. where a single review or two cannot be used to refute the viewpoints of those organizations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Your comment glosses over the fact that we don't know if the group of sources being considered represents NPOV. Further, there are many angles from which every source needs to be evaluated. When was it published, what were the dates of the papers included? Do their funding sources or histories make them less than reliable or independent?

According to policy (WP:MEDRS (unless it has been changed recently), the Domingo review is considered on par with statements from respected, independent organizations.

Regarding your WP:OR with Panchen, Tsavage has already expressed:

Tryptofish: As I read what Panchin concludes, the only way I can interpret it We shouldn't be interpreting it in the way you mean, if Panchin wanted to say, "Based on the re-examination of these six studies, for x-y-z reasons, we conclude that all such studies are flawed," he could have done that. Panchin did not do that. All the pieces to form your own conclusion may be provided, but it's not up to us at Wikipedia to form that conclusion and then commit it to content.

Further, he argues, My objection is that, in this consensus statement debate, we're picking studies to try to piece together or shore up something that should be clear in one source, using a combination of multiple sources, and working them in to Wikipedia sourcing rules. Panchin appears to be doing essentially the same thing, they believe we should pay attention to the overall amount of research, and not focus on single studies, and they have found a novel way to support that contention, one which has been accepted in a peer-reviewed journal. How we use Panchin is the issue.

These points remain relevant. The Panchen discussion never concluded before being archived. petrarchan47คุก 05:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure no one is going to argue about statements from high level organizations like AAAS, NAS, WHO, FAO, etc. being NPOV. Nor are arguments that sources like Ronald are "pro-GMO activists" for being an expert in the field (and a vocal expert) going to get much traction. As for Panchin, they do make comments on the broader literature in the main paper rather than in just the abstract. There's more going on than just commenting directly on six studies if people give the entire paper a read. The discussion on Panchin did reach a natural end as the arguments against Panchin never stuck in terms of consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't defer to anonymous editors as the authority for the claims you're making about sources. We have begged you to allow us to quote the WHO, in fact it is Proposal 7. You have opted to write your own summary based on your own chosen sources and interpretations. The FAO source is from 2003, per MEDRS we shouldn't be using it. When discussing sources, it's a waste of our time to be less than specific. Linking us to the sources you're referring to would help. You have ignored my request that you cite policy that supports elevating these organizations above a review paper. Because this is an RfC, it makes sense to discuss only PAGs, and how they relate to sources. Otherwise it can be seen as disruptive and is actionable. Further, if the scientific community reads Panchin as you do, we should have sources saying as much, but Panchin is only 6 months old, so it might be too soon to give it any weight beyond that suggested by Tsavage (sticking to facts, no interpretation or extrapolation by you and Tryp).petrarchan47คุก 08:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

On the points where Petrarchan47 and I disagree, for me, it all comes down to the sources, and we clearly read those sources differently. After so many discussions in which neither of us has convinced the other, I believe the best thing to do is to have this RfC, and get as many fresh eyes on the subject as possible. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish, you have not answered my question. Are you claiming that Panchin discredited Domingo, or were you referring to other papers that have? We can't talk about the sources used in your proposal unless you are specific. I'm in disagreement with the weight you have placed on Ronald, given her status as a GMO advocate, who profits from its positive image, and whose work was based on what turned out to be faulty results due to mistakes in the lab. To elevate her above Krimsky's review, which states that there is no consensus, makes me question your neutrality on this issue, and your ability to weigh sources.

It appears Tryptofish and KingofAces43 believe that Panchin debunks all studies that could be considered anti-GM or critical. Here is Tsavage from the Panchin discussion:

"[Tryptofish] and Kingofaces43...give far too much weight to Panchin. If we're not talking about their tenuous and exceptional claim to invalidate ALL research that suggests GMO effects, then we are just talking about reanalysis of six studies using a controversial method - journal publication doesn't automatically support us repeating whatever a study's authors have to say.

At some point, this type of protracted and literal negotiation over small pieces of content stops being about the content itself, and basic content policy like neutral weight and tone, and overall balance, and becomes mainly about editor preference for interpretation, which is OR and wrong.

If we want to bring in Panchin, a pretty well unrecognized study, and use it to offset Domingo and Krimsky, we should not start by giving Panchin relatively detailed coverage, while relegating, for example, an actual review study like Domingo, to "some studies" status. --Tsavage (02:26, 13 February 2016)

The abstract is riddled with caveats:

We performed a statistical reanalysis and review of experimental data presented in some [6] of these studies and found that quite often in contradiction with the authors’ conclusions the data actually provides weak evidence of harm that cannot be differentiated from chance. In our opinion the problem of statistically unaccounted multiple comparisons has led to some of the most cited anti-genetically modified organism health claims in history

To even a casual observer, it is shocking that an encyclopedia would consider theirs an acceptable take on the literature. Tsavage breaks it down further here for those interested. petrarchan47คุก 08:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I can appreciate that it may look to you like I haven't directly answered some of your more recent questions to me. But that is because I know from past experience that you and I will not change one another's minds, and a detailed reply from me would just be tl;dr for other editors. As I said before, what I really want now is for the RfC process to move along and decide these issues. Other editors: please look at the sources and decide for yourselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Tryptofish, let me be clear: what I am trying to ascertain is how you have used sources in your Proposal #1. You were kind enough to answer me partially, by saying that Domingo had been debunked, and I believe you nodded toward Panchin. But it isn't entirely clear, and it also seemed that you loosely referenced another source. If that is the case, please clarify. We cannot 'vote' on the proposals without understanding how references are being considered and understood by the authors of those proposals. This, by the way, is exactly how the RfC process moves along. This talk page is to discuss sources, but I just need a bit of clarification from you regarding your earlier comments. Thanks, petrarchan47คุก 02:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, the way that the sources such as Domingo, Krimsky, Panchin, and Yang are used in Proposal 1 can be seen in citation #4 of that proposal. I think (hope) that the way in which that footnote is written is self-explanatory. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I won't respond to comments on editors, but I do suggest looking at more than just the abstract. As has been discussed previously, there are broader statements by Panchin in the paper itself. Panchin comments on what it does even if they formally analyzed only the notable subset of studies while making broader comments elsewhere about the rest of the literature. We can't engage in our own peer-review of what they did as that opens us up to WP:OR problems. That was the core problem under discussion at the discussions you've linked to. As Trypto alluded to, there are many things we have discussed as involved editors with some things addressed, some dismissed, and some just unresolved. The uninvolved RfC respondents will weigh things as they will at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Luckily WP:RS and WP:MEDRS are quite clear. If you have a paper (which I heave read) that proposes a theory, based on application of the Bonferroni correction, which the authors admit has a conservative leaning, a paper which at this point is cited by no one, you cannot use it to say anything beyond what the authors say, if that. In this case I cannot see how Panchin is representing anything but a fringe theory. Of course, a round earth was once a fringe theory, so this is not necessarily negative. But editors cannot use this source in this way according to our PAGs. "Votes" for proposals that include misuse of sources will have to be weighed accordingly. So these conversations are important to have, even though it's exhausting for everyone. petrarchan47คุก 02:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Question to Moderators: Is threaded discussion and >800 words acceptable here?

@The Wordsmith:, @Coffee: (moderators)

During the rule making phase which was:

• Archive 1 (History)
• User_talk:The_Wordsmith/Archive_6#GMO_RfC

both Tryptofish and Kingofaces43 expressed dire concerns about the "disaster" [8] of allowing editors to have threaded discussion [9] and going over 800 words in this RfC [10]. Yet, it appears, that Tryptofish believes that threaded discussion and going over 800 words is okay on this talk page [11]. Is it okay, or is it not? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Per the Rules on the RfC page: Editors are encouraged to discuss and collaborate with one another on the RfC Talk page, where threaded discussion is permitted and there are no word limits.. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That is correct; discussion without those particular limits is the purpose of this talkpage. Civility, aspersions, and content-focused rules are still in force, however. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's very reasonable to have asked that question, but I wonder whether David might reconsider the way that he referred to Kingofaces and me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Could it have been worded more nicely? Probably. Is the way he worded things against the rules? No, I don't think so. Coffee is free to offer his opinion here as well, but given how smoothly things are going so far I'm not about to go making mountains of molehills. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC) I did not realize the rule was so explicit or I would not have asked. On my talk page, Tryptofish said his "interpretation" of the rules was that it was acceptable, which suggested to me it was not clear. I did not consider Tryptofish to have authority to interpret and clarify the rules, which I assume is under the authority of the moderators. If I had been aware of this explicit language, I would not have asked about it twice. My apologies for not carefully reading the long list of rules, which would also have avoided the need for both discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC) No worries, the question was answered. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC) I'm fine with leaving this, this way. As I already said, I think David's question was a reasonable one. (Redacted) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC) (Redacted) --David Tornheim (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC) @Tryptofish: In the future you need to bring any concerns about editor behavior to our user talkpages or ANI (David did not violate that by mentioning an editor's opinion as part of his stated confusion). This is not the proper venue to ask us to review or redact comments. @David Tornheim: Please refrain from commenting on anything other than the RFC and related content from now on, no matter how antagonized you may feel; leave the moderating to to the moderators (that goes for you as well Tryptofish). - Thank you both for your anticipated cooperation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

A shorter Proposal 1?

I observe that some editors support something like Proposal 1, but I also observe that some editors would like to see something shorter and maybe simpler. I was thinking that one option would be for me to make a proposal that would simply be the first sentence of Proposal 1, without the subsequent sentences. Are editors potentially interested in such a proposal? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Not me. Also, I urge editors to carefully read the RS and not rely on what they read in popular American science magazines and/or the mainstream media. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I think you oppose Proposal 1 in any form. (But I also remember that I added the sentence about differences in regulation between nations in response to your request.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Short Answer: No, I do not object entirely to Proposal 1 in any form. In fact, it is much better than >1/2 of the proposals so far.

Long Answer: I did not notice until only yesterday that you had improved Proposal 1 to include mention of regulations, bans and mandatory labeling, despite this previous discussion at GM crops--Talk, where my request that the 3rd sentence of Proposal 1 be added immediately to the ledes was rejected. I do appreciate that it is still Proposal 1, and forgotten that it had survived that discussion. Thank you. And I admit surprise that those who opposed inclusion of that language in the lede at that time do support Proposal 1.

Although I do think Sentence 1 is too strong and that Montanabw's Proposal 10 and my Proposal 4 are more NPOV and descriptive of the state of the RS on the science, I am on the fence about supporting Proposal 1 for the mere fact that it includes this important information about varying regulations, bans and mandatory labeling that is not currently in the article ledes and should be (as I have said many times).

Short answer to your Question: No.

Although, I have not made a statement to that effect at the RfC main, as I am waiting to see what other editors have to say first and review new proposals that come in and any negotiation over language. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful input. I appreciate that you still have an open mind about Proposal 1, and I do agree with your reasons for not considering a shorter version to be an improvement. Myself, I would prefer to have something very close to the existing Proposal 1, instead of something like just its first sentence. I appreciate what Insertcleverphrasehere says just below, but I'm taking this slow, because I'm trying to assess editor opinions before making a new proposal. At the moment, I'm not hearing an outpouring of desire for a one-sentence version, and if that continues to be the case, I won't bother with it. But if it subsequently develops that a lot of editors oppose Proposal 1 but would support just the first sentence, then that would become my second choice and I would propose it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and make it proposal 11. Seems like a reasonable proposal to me.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Question for Collect Re Proposal 4

@Collect: you say of Proposal 4: "No pretense of neutral wording, and both long and unreadable. If the purpose is to provide a simple and accurate boiler-plate statement, no.". Please explain how it is not NPOV. Perhaps saying "embraced GMOs" should go--even though it should be obvious to anyone who reads their writing. Everything else is 100% consistent with the RS chosen. I was not striving for boilerplate but to avoid the one-side pro-GMO PR we currently have in the article and in the other proposals that ignores all the concerns raised by scientists and others about testing and regulation. The GMO articles make it seem like all GMO testing and regulation is the same everywhere which absolutely not true. (Note: This was originally on the Project page, but threaded discussion here is more appropriate.)----David Tornheim (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

1. "A number of major American scientific organizations (American Medical Association,[1] AAAS,[2] National Research Council[3]) and other international scientific organizations have embraced GMOs and assert that they are as safe for human consumption as food derived from conventional breeding, and hence should not require special testing or labeling if they are substantially equivalent to the conventional product." is not neutrally worded. The use of "embraced" is noted by you, but the use of "asserted" is generally viewed as "non-neutral." You also have "substantially equivalent to the conventional product" which is not the issue for all GMO foods.
2. "But other major scientific organizations disagree (e.g. British Medical Association,[5] Royal Society of Canada,[6][7] Public Health Australia[8]), stating that GMOs need medium and long term studies[9] or that current safety regulatory assessments are insufficient" has the problematic "But", and used "stating" which gives this the gravitas of "fact" as opposed to "asserting" opinion, furthering the non-neutrality of the proposal.
3. "Scientific review articles on GM food safety are divided between those following the American approach of assuming GMOs are Generally Recognized as Safe and those that are more skeptical." assigns equal weight to both views as being in the positions in scientific journals, while it is clear that the clear preponderance of articles find that GMO foods which have been tested, are, in fact, safe and are not just "assumed" to be safe.
4. " Numerous countries such as those in the E.U. use a different approach from U.S.,[13] following the Precautionary Principle by requiring additional testing and/or labeling under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety." furthers the non-neutral theme by asserting something special to that protocol, strongly implying that the US has insufficient testing ab initio.
5. " Some countries ban GM food imports and/or production entirely.[1]" is an aside not actually related to the safety of GMO foods, and in a few cases elides the fact that many countries make political decisions concerning agriculture for various reasons, and often not really about actual safety at all.
6. "International organizations (WHO[16] and the U.N.'s FAO[9]) state that GM food that has been approved is safe to eat and no significant health hazards have arisen from GM food" has the rather pointy "no significant health hazards" with a clear implication that actual health hazards have been shown, but that these organizations somehow just drew a line for "significant" ones.

Thus - the proposal includes a pretty clear presentation about GMO foods which is actually that "there is no consensus", that "there are hazards associated with such foods", that some countries assert reasonably that hazards exist, and that the organizations which accept such foods are almost all American, that only a few international organizations agree with the American position, and that the Americans simply "assert" safety, while those oppose "state" the fact that we have not made proper tests on such foods. The proposal is not neutrally worded, and clearly supports a claim that GMO foods are not tested enough, and that they do have some hazards. Quod erat demonstrandum. Collect (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I have been away. I will take some time to respond to all of it, but feel free to respond to what I am writing now:

(6) You claim that Proposal 4 indicates there are "some health hazards". It does not say that, nor does it imply that. The language you called WP:pointy comes straight from the WP:RS. The sentence in question references Nicolia [18], the same source used in many of the proposals to claim a "scientific consensus":

We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops. [emphasis added.]

So the language you are calling pointy is, in fact, exactly what the author is claiming the scientific consensus is--rather than what is in sentence 1 of Proposal 1. Nicolia is a review article of comparable significance to Domingo and the other review articles mentioned in Krimsky.

The only GMO health "scare" I am aware of is the StarLink corn recall where GMO Bt corn (containing Bt toxin insecticide) that was authorized for animal feed--but not authorized for human consumption--was accidentally sold to numerous Taco Bell customers. Was it a "hazard"? I do not know. But even water can be dangerous (See: Median lethal dose).

I will address your other other points later, but feel free to respond to this one at any time. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 11

@Rhoark: In your statement, you said, "State the facts, state there are disagreeing opinions, and game on.". I'm confused why your Proposal does not mention the disagreeing opinions of the scientists with regard to things like: (1) unintended and unforeseeable problem with GMOs that are different than conventional crops (2) concerns about lack of long term studies (3) concerns about allergries (4) BMA's call for a moratorium (5) Statement by the WHO that no generalizations can be made about GMO health safety (6) concerns even by the AMA that the FDA's optional pre-market consultation regulation process is not adequate and should be made mandatory. It's not just the public that has concerns. The RS clearly shows that many scientists do too, despite the number of statements, primarily by American scientists/org, that GMO food is not inherently riskier than food from crops from conventional breeding. If there was more balance and more NPOV, I might support your proposal. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

None of that contradicts the central claim of "no evidence of harm". Some of it supports the stated need for case-by-case testing and may be desirable as a supplementary citations. Rhoark (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish reply to Jbhunley

@Jbhunley: Thanks for your question to me on the RfC page. Because of the word count limit, I'd like to reply here, and you can feel free to extend the discussion here. My personal opinion is that I want to have that many cites, right there in the proposed text. Having worked for some time in this editing area, I've become very aware that there is a serious matter of needing to demonstrate that any assertion is very well sourced. I'm aware of WP:OVERCITE, but my opinion is that this is a specific instance where the sources are needed, and the number is not excessive. But if you want to make a proposal with fewer citations, that would of course be fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. I can understand the desire to have the citations right there. My concern is a practical one - the citations from those few sentences will add a huge bit of text to each and every page subject to this RfC.

If you do not mind me using your text and simply changing the method of citation I will put together a proposal that differs only in its cosmetics. Alternately, since I have seen several editors comment on citation overkill in general, would it be better to simply put up a proposal on using sub-page citations in general? Jbh^Talk 18:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing a new proposal along your "cosmetics" comments. I don't understand how a sub-page would work. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I just saw how you set up a sub-page in your user space (should have looked there first, woops). Seeing that, I don't much like the idea. It would require creating a new page, and linking to it from each page in the RfC scope. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see that as a feature rather than a bug. There would be a single page say, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms/Collected citations where everything can be centrally managed rather than 11 pages which need to be managed individually. It would also give a central place to add and/or challenge sources rather than such discussions happening at each page individually - if they are on each page then they can be challenged on each page, possibly by differing groups of editors. Ultimately I think it would make management of 'boilerplate' across so many pages much easier by keeping things consistent.

Plus, there is the readability/cosmetic issue, general readers can be intimidated by long chains of refs (we are not trying to convince editors in the article text) and it can give the impression of hammering them with the issue. Jbh^Talk 18:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's subjective. (You say "GM tomato" and I say "GM tomato"......) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Jbh^Talk 19:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I meant to say this yesterday, and then completely forgot. In your question to me on the RfC page, you described Proposal 1 as something that I wrote. It's definitely true that I did the largest amount of the work that went into drafting it, and of course I support it, but it was actually written collaboratively with quite a few other editors (see Talk:Genetically modified crops for the edit history). The drafting process went on over a period of several weeks, with multiple initial drafts proposed and then rejected or modified, and with input from multiple editors with a variety of views about the content issues. I think that's a comparative strength. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

On RS -- Rhododendrites

@Rhododendrites: you mentioned in your comment, "I did some research of my own a while back, but not enough, and certainly not all of the sources presented here." I commend you for doing your own research. I do fear that commentators have based their comments on articles they read in the mainstream media and popular science mags rather than the best quality RS available.

There is quite a bit there. I would like to hear about any articles you came across that are good RS that are not mentioned in any of the proposals. I would also like to hear which sources you think are the best RS.

There is a discussion above (that has taken place in many places) about the source Domingo (and Krimsky). Domingo is an expert in toxicology, now editor-in-chief of a toxicology journal who wrote two review articles on GMO food safety. Domingo is the best RS under the WP:MEDRS standard, yet a number of these proposals give no voice to in the text, leaving it out entirely or burying it in the footnotes. I would like your comments on what you think is the best RS and how to handle something like this. I can not see how anyone can legitimately call Domingo "fringe". Modern flat Earth societies, the prime example given in WP:UNDUE, have failed to get any of their b.s. published in peer reviewed scientific journals, much less a review article in a respected journal. Even editors who claims that there is indeed a "scientific consensus" have acknowledged that Domingo is the best RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I might have missed it, but I don't think that I have seen anyone call the Domingo source fringe or to disagree that it is a reliable source. Instead, the arguments I have seen are that there are other sources that reach different conclusions than Domingo, that there are a lot of them that similarly examine the breadth of the scientific literature and reach different conclusions, and that several of these are more recent than Domingo, cite Domingo, and evaluate Domingo as being non-definitive. That's why we have policies like WP:DUE. Domingo should be assigned relative weight in relation to the source material as a whole. And that has nothing to do with popular media. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 called Domingo and Krimsky both WP:Fringe. I wrote:

Also, per WP:MEDRS, we should be using the best secondary sources such as peer reviewed journal articles, ideally reviews (from the relevant subject field), such as Domingo(2011)and Krimsky(2015), right? --David Tornheim (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC) [diff]

King's immediate response was:

MEDRS says you use the best secondary sources, not poor fringe sources that conflict with the scientific consensus on GMOs. It would violate NPOV to use them in this fashion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC) [diff]

That discussion took place here: Talk:Genetically_modified_crops/Archive_3#General_agreement

--David Tornheim (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there any doubt Krimsky is an unreliable overall fringe source with respect to the scientific consensus due to being a non-expert in the field, low tier journal for such a claim, endorsing debunked pseudoscience, etc. It's an overall poor source when you rigorously apply the various guidelines behind MEDRS. As for Domingo, it does have some use as a reliable source (highly dependent on context) but using it specifically to say there isn't a consensus does bring it into fringe territory, especially when the much more recent Panchin review gives it next to no weight in regards to the consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

King, again this is opinion but it is lacking evidence and specificity, making your claims difficult to weigh. What are you saying Krimsky "endorsed", and what were his words that support your claim? What is "debunked pseudoscience", specifically, and what beyond your own voice should we use to verify these claims? This: "I don't think there any doubt Krimsky is an unreliable overall fringe source" is a useless statement unless you provide refs. Please don't use this page to spout evidence-free beliefs. petrarchan47คุก 09:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in past conversations with you, and the evidence has been cited elsewhere on this RfC page already. I'm leaving it to RfC respondents to weight at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That answer is less than sufficient, I am asking you to clarify claims you have just made - claims which can't be clear to anyone but you. Thank you for taking the time. petrarchan47คุก 02:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

King I'm afraid I don't understand the following: especially when the much more recent Panchin review gives it next to no weight in regards to the consensus. Newer doesn't mean more reliable if the source is so new there is no review available. It is much more tricky to use at WP. In which paragraph does Panchin mention Domingo? Thanks again, petrarchan47คุก 04:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The narrow scope of this RfC

Markbassett In your recent comments, you rejected Proposal 7 based on its lack of information about public perception. However, a quick review of the goal of the RfC reveals:

Each of these pages has language similar to: There is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis. Editors are generally dissatisfied with this wording, but disagree about how to revise it. This RfC presents options for content to replace that wording, and is intended to determine community consensus about that.

Public perception was added to proposals in some sort of of SYNTH/OR/creep but is not how arguments and proposals will be judged. It could be argued that because OR SYNTH is a guideline violation, arguments supporting these proposals will carry less weight.

It might be advisable for authors to trim proposals to meet the RfC guideline and clearly stated goal. petrarchan47คุก 09:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that "Editors are generally dissatisfied with this wording" partially because it does not address the issue of the clear an obvious disparity between the public perception vs scientific view of GM foods?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent discussions made it occur to me to add to my own statement that I oppose the existing language. Please let me suggest to other editors that you may want to make your own evaluations of "no change" explicit. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Bassett: You are spot on in your analysis in issue #1. The sources do not show a "scientific consensus" on the language of Proposal 1. Thank you for your thoughtful work. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 - ??? Becomes clearer if you read the language of RFC and my comments closely. The RfC literally did not ask for a voting nor was public perception excluded from proposals, and my comments are to what the RfC asked for. The RFC asked for comments to address two numbered questions of first whether the preponderance of RS indicate scientific consensus, and second should the existing language be changed and which proposal if any representing the answer to the first question. To the first question I said no scientific consensus shown - as scientific consensus refers to a single statement of a specific scientific community, and the diverse cites including medical (an art or practice community) and broad scientific groups do not fit the term's narrowness and specific process/field. To the second question I comment with just follow the cites, a simple urging to convey what cites say in due weight. Among the proposals I highlighted a few more close and factually portraying the cites and I also said that generally due weight is not provided in proposals. It's a matter of what one can say appropriate to the cite. For example, the language you bolded I think echoes the WHO wording and could be reported as the WHO wording -- but to state it without attribution would be an unsupported claim, to state it as uncontested fact or as being more than WHO words would be inaccurate, and to state only it with nothing of the other cites or to emphasize it above all other cites would be inappropriate weight... especially if it gets stuffed into articles where WHO opinion has factually just not been present. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is useful for editors to consider how the phrase "scientific consensus" is treated in the source material. As the lead in our page about it makes clear, consensus is not the same thing as unanimity. Thus, whether or not there is "a single statement of a specific scientific community" can depend on how one encounters that "specific" part. Here, we have multiple mainstream reliable sources that say that a scientific consensus does exist, using the exact words "scientific consensus" or "broad scientific consensus", and many of these sources cite and assign low importance to other sources that dispute the consensus. I think that an argument can be made that it is WP:OR to change what those sources say to something like "scientific agreement" (the existing language on many affected pages) or "scientific majority". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish -- thank you for agreeing the large varied buncha cites is not giving a specific scientific community; which is one of the points where for me it failed to match the wikilinked scientific consensus associated meaning, and what the RFC literally asked about. No, not about unanimity -- just about wording choice for a herd of cites that is here and whether wikilinking to that specific meaning is supported as opposed to not present or misreading chance similar phrasings. No, the cites in these that I pulled did not state or imply a "scientific consensus" in this meaning of the term. Most proposals here did not use the phrasing at all (#2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12) and the ones that do (1, 5, 6, and 9) have not supported it -- having 7 items listed is not great, that they include a UN 2003 statement on collective evidence; and one from Italian policy writers in a healthcare pub casual language perhaps coincidentally uses the phrase; another cite refers to it as 'respected organizations' consensus meaning non-scientists... did not help either. The bunch of variegated supportive cites together might be described in article as 'scientific and health groups' or 'general scientific agreement' or something else though. Just not fitting the term scientific consensus. And again, I think just follow the cites and put in what they say at the articles topic, with due WP:WEIGHT of the actual occurrence in that topic. The 'one-size-fits-all' shoving it in or gathering of cites and proclaiming scientific consensus term they didn't use in this effort is still feeling a bit like WP:SYNTH. Markbassett (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think where we agree the most is that it is best to "just follow the cites". But actually, you thanked me for saying something that I did not really say (although you're welcome anyway!). Just because there are a lot of sources that can be cited does not mean that they each represent differing views, or that it is SYNTH to cite them together. It seems to me that when sources say that there is "a broad scientific consensus", then they are indicating that there is a scientific consensus, without any SYNTH needed. And it seems to me when I take all of the sources together as a whole, then those that say that there is a scientific consensus weigh highly, because they include analyses of the dissenting sources in arriving at their conclusions. But it's fine if you read that differently than I do, because this is what the RfC is for. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Mark, some of your comments have confused me a bit, so hopefully you can explain. Are you saying that because there are multiple sources saying there is a scientific consensus, that means there isn't a scientific consensus? It can't think of a single instance where this logic would work (e.g. climate change, evolution, etc.), so am I misreading something from what you've said for what you're looking for? Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 I'll try explaining one more time, but it's basically just not the appropriate phrase for describing the herd of cites nor is the phrase really appropriate for describing the external situation.

First, WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH as the RFC really does not look to be trying just follow the cites for an article to convey the phrasings of items in proportion to their prominence on each topic, or seeking the right phrasing for an external situation. It seems asking for a creative writing drill to then push into articles where it is not externally present. Putting for example just the WHO wording at top of the overall situation seems incorrect as the world is firmly in the regulate and test camp with less-confident variations like 'generally regarded as safe' from the more influential and externally prominent government and medical lead players other than WHO ... and which applies most to different articles varies.

Second, the specific phrase wikilinked to is not appropriate term for the herd of cites. Wikilinking to the term scientific consensus is making a distinct association to "the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study", so it is linking to a very specific and privileged claim that at least one scientific community body made a statement. This isn't the right summation for a herd of cites shown, and factually the meaning seems not supported by the cites. There are numerous societies and academies and fields that would fit the phrase, even if the scientific community is within social sciences or formal sciences, and the wikilinked article also mentions National Academy of Sciences as suiting. But what I see on say proposal 1 seems just a vaguely collected herd of cites, the fourth cite being a collective list and three single cites of diverse types such as individual author article or government policy source or medical community. Not apparently focused to scientific consensus, not naming the learned society or academy or mentioning particular PhD field(s) and I'm not even seeing a particular theme or high significance to the items chosen. I see this even cites something saying no consensus where Krimsky, Sheldon (2015) "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" talks about looking for scientific consensus and quotes BMA "absence of scientific consensus" and concludes "the putative consensus about the inherent safety of transgenic crops is premature".

Anyway, Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

What you just wrote actually supports the scientific consensus wording. When you have a scientific consensus, you're going to have multiple sources claiming that, and multiple sources citing those sources reiterating the consensus when it is well established. We expect to cite review articles and organizations per WP:RS/AC that explicitly state there is a consensus. We included citations for both those directly saying there is a consensus and the citations of other sources that were cited in the sources saying there was a consensus. There's no synth going on doing that. Read through the sources and you'll see that these are all interlinked for the relevant organizations and disciplines rather than being a disparate collection of our own doing. At the end of the day, the sources directly say there is a consensus in relevant fields.

Also keep in mind the 4th cite deals with WP:FRINGE ideas in the scientific community. Krimsky for example, as a non-expert in the field while citing pseudoscience tries to state there isn't a consensus despite more reliable and even more sources state there is a consensus. A similar example is Domingo, which editors here have used to claim there isn't a consensus even though a later review (Panchin) cites Domingo while still saying there is a consensus. We're basically addressing the idea that there are legitimate concerns, and that these are either dismissed or addressed by the scientific community in reaching the consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 No, my RFC input and what I just wrote is that the group of cites are not supporting scientific consensus. That wikilink is fairly specific about what such a claim means and the herd of random writings shown did not have such a thread -- even had one cite saying 'there is no scientific consensus.' These cites might support some other descriptive, but not that wikilinked phrase. And again, it still smells bad for WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH here to craft up a phrase and shove it into articles rather than just follow the cites and report what all RS on an article topic say in proportion to their prominence. Markbassett (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That one cite is the source by Krimsky. About "craft"ing up a phrase, there are multiple sources that say, verbatim, that there is a "scientific consensus", but I don't recollect any source that says, verbatim, that there is a "scientific agreement", which unfortunately is the existing language on many of the pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Mark, as many are aware I have been requesting that we add what the sources say to our articles rather than a summary of sources SYNTHed together in a way that is less than clear to both the reader, and other editors. This summary is extra difficult to check for accuracy and NPOV, unless like Proposal 7, it does not include editors' own take but sticks closely to neutral RS. My suggestion was, and remains, that we expand the content, after each source is discussed by the community, and build GMO articles in the normal process. A summary would then be very easy to write. My concern is that this RfC (as I've said previously) is asking editors to vote on what amounts to SYNTH/OR, which is not allowed. petrarchan47คุก 04:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The way that I see it, the RfC is very useful because it allows more editors to look at the issues with fresh eyes, and to decide for themselves whether something is or is not SYNTH/OR. And as I have said a couple of times now, it seems to me that "scientific consensus" comes directly from the sources, whereas such existing language as "scientific agreement" is actually the original research. I also think that an examination of this discussion thread demonstrates clearly how various editors just don't agree about "consensus"/"agreement", and I think that the RfC is the best way to establish a community consensus that will settle the issue for some time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It's true I began this section with a comment to MarkBasset, but the larger point extends well beyond his comment: (as I just said to Wordsmith) the controversial safety statement we are tasked with replacing never included anything about public perception or bans, nor does the present one, officially. IMO, the accidental extension, whose addition received no discussion by the community, should be remedied by Admins. It isn't an official addition, but is weighing in heavily according to editors' comments. This RfC doesn't need added issues; it is a very complex topic and very controversial claim.

From what I can tell, Mark rejected Proposal 7 (the WHO's statement) because it didn't address the other issues which aren't actually a part of this RfC -- I misread his comments, but the larger issue remains.petrarchan47คุก 02:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

petrarchan47 What I did was answer the RFC in the terms it gave, which are

• 1. Based upon the policies, guidelines, and concepts related to scientific consensus, listed below, do the preponderance of reliable sources (see citations in the listed proposals) indicate that there is a scientific consensus about the safety of genetically modified food with respect to human health?

Answer Me: No, scientific consensus is not shown (by the citations in the proposals)

I've since had questions and pointed out that the term wikilinked describes what will support it -- only the declaration of a scientific society or body like NAS -- and instead cites included: Krimsky saying 'no scientific consensus', an NCBI page mentioning controversy and 'mounting scientific evidence', a Domingo review of scientific literature saying 'a risk assessment of GM food generally has not been systematically performed', a Panchin work Critical Reviews of Biotechnology article behind a wall titled 'Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons', a Ronald article in Genetics claiming 'broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat', the UN State of Food and Agriculture 2003-2004 saying 'scientific evidence still emerging', and Nicolia in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology article "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety" where the Italian Ministry of Agriculture collected up articles 'trying to catch the scientific consensus' and concludes "that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard" which is somewhat less than the WHO-style language in the proposal. So ... no, the "preponderance" (m-w def: a superiority in weight, power, importance, or strength; superiority or excess in number or quantity/majority) of cites did not even claim scientific consensus, nor does it present a scientific society or NAS stateement, let alone to the "that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" statement which is the proposal 1 language.

• 2. Should the existing language be changed, and which content proposal(s), if any, best represent the answer to question 1 for inclusion in the articles listed above?

Answer Me: Best representing my answer to 1 (no scientific consensus) for inclusion in the articles listed ... for the article summary in numerous pages went with revise to appropriate WEIGHT on situation and public view and just follow the cites and state what is said accurately and in due WP:WEIGHT to their prominence on the topic. Proposals 4 and 10 do better at conveying the cites factually, 7 and 8 do better limited to just the WHO cite but that the WHO seems well below the relevance of regulatory and medical bodies or public opinion for these article topics.

petrarchan47 I do not know what you mean by your 'tasking' or 'officially' in "the controversial safety statement we are tasked with replacing never included anything about public perception or bans, nor does the present one, officially." I only responded to the RFC as asked, expected inputs to be taken not discussed at length or to be a puzzle. I think this has given me the ideas though that I should add a couple proposals for completeness -- first that better than any of these simply may be the existing if imperfect "There is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis." and second that for simplification one can simply delete a disliked line. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

First, WP:RS/AC is the relevant policy here, not the wikilinked scientific consensus. "only the declaration of a scientific society" would violate that policy, but we instead rely both on reviews and especially those scientific organizations. We have direct quotes from reviews and high level scientific organizations saying there is a scientific consensus statement, and they are further citing in those statements a plethora of scientific organizations that use implicit consensus language (i.e. every respected organization says GM food is as safe as conventional). The WHO, NAS, AAAS, FAO, etc. are all included in those consensus statements, so we have in reality satisfied your criteria for the consensus language as well. Weighting Domingo, Krimsky, etc. against all that to say there isn't a consensus would violate WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI due to low source quality, etc. They are only mentioned in the proposals as a notable fringe view like we do as climate change deniers being a notable even if incorrect subset of views elsewhere. As mentioned elsewhere, using "scientific agreement" would violate WP:OR it isn't used in the sources, but scientific consensus is. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you continue to assert that "Domingo, Krimsky, etc." are Fringe? Domingo is the top quality under the WP:MEDRS standard and cannot be dismissed without strong evidence. Domingo is an expert in toxicology. The paper was published in a journal with impact factor 5.6. Domingo 2011 is cited by 164 others according to Google Scholar. Domingo has numerous papers with a similar large number of citations of his work[12], showing he is a well respected scientist. He is editor-in-chief of the journal that retracted Seralini's paper, Food and Chemical Toxicology[13]. Although others have falsely claimed that Domingo 2011 was "discredited", those making such assertions could never supply any evidence it was true. Nicolia's review is of comparable level, so the two should be presented on an equal footing. We cannot dismiss high quality sources because they present views that differ with other RS. We must present RS of comparable quality according to policy WP:DUE. Only permitting RS that expresses a view you agree with and dismissing all other high quality RS as WP:Fringe simply because it disagrees is not WP:NPOV and does not follow policy. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

More on sources (from Opabinia)

I first read most of the proposals last week when the RfC went live, and wrote some brief thoughts on some of the sources used; moving them here to save space and spare the closers some tedious reading.

• Krimsky 2015: It is a notable view, but not a good source for the state of the science on the subject. It devotes significant space to attempting to rehabilitate scientific work so discredited that the dispute itself became independently notable (see Seralini affair). Even earlier in the paper, there are obvious cues that the author is not conversant with the literature in molecular biology and genetics at the level needed to evaluate the science. (See, for example, the last two paragraphs on page 890, and compare the discussion of the same topic in Nicolia 2013 in the section "Safety of the proteins encoded by the transgenes".)
• Domingo and Bordonaba 2011: Superior to Krimsky, and its emphasis on Seralini's work can at least be explained by the publication date. However, it's poorly used in the proposal, attached to a statement about the differences between the American and European regulatory paradigms, when in fact the paper is a literature review of animal feeding studies, describing such studies are roughly evenly balanced between those that find evidence of harm and those that don't. (Other reviews reach other conclusions; see also doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048 and doi:10.1038/nbt.2686.)
• Bawa and Anilakumar 2012: This source is interesting in that it contains discussion specific to India, whereas a lot of the literature on this subject focuses on the US and Europe even as GM crops become more widespread in developing countries. However, much of the text is devoted to a general overview of GMOs, rather than evaluation of their risks. There are also some strange statements in the text - e.g. "It is believed that consumption of these genetically engineered foods can cause the development of diseases which are immune to antibiotics." without a citation (perhaps it is believed by someone, but infectious disease is not a scientifically reasonable risk of GMOs). Similarly, "GM foods are useful in controlling the occurrence of certain diseases. By modifying the DNA system of these foods, the properties causing allergies are eliminated successfully." While I suppose it's possible to do that, this is a jarring description considering that the more common concern is that GMOs will introduce allergens into unexpected sources.

Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding elimination of allergies: [14] --David Tornheim (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, CRISPR/Cas9 for genome editing has a lot of potential. As you probably know, having read many of these sources, this technique is extremely new and has become widespread for research purposes but is very different from the techniques used to develop the GMOs that are currently in commercial use. A couple of months ago a regulatory hurdle was passed in the US for a CRISPR/Cas9-based GMO, a button mushroom that resists browning: Gene-edited CRISPR mushroom escapes US regulation. However, this was developed in a research context; it's not yet in a position to be commercially available. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Having written this sentence:

Scientific review articles on GM food safety are divided between those following the American approach of assuming GMOs are Generally Recognized as Safe and those that are more skeptical.

refs

I agree with your criticism that this was not a great sentence for bringing out the key points of Domingo and Krimsky. I agree with your summary that Domingo is a "literature review of animal feeding studies, describing such studies are roughly evenly balanced between those that find evidence of harm and those that don't." I would support adding that sentence (to Proposal 4) to contrast with statements that are more optimistic on GMO safety.

I have read quite bit of RS on GMOs, and particularly on the differences in regulations in different countries. Reading my Proposal now months later, I can understand commentators concern that I put so much emphasis on regulatory differences, when I could have been more clear on what Krimsky and Domingo said in contrast to AMA, AAAS and NAS.

I was trying to all of these things simultaneously:

(1) incorporate as much of the important RS as possible (without using quote farms)

(2) articulate important themes, and major differences of opinions voiced in numerous articles

(3) identify the different voices (e.g. International orgs statements are often similar in calm tone and language; American groups such the AMA, AAAS and NAS medical/science groups are more forcefully pro-GMO; the BMA on the other side asked for a moratorium on GMOs under the Precautionary Principle; the review articles that focus more on the data or lack of it; and the many law review articles strongly disapproving of the American regulatory approach viz-a-viz E.U.'s)

Trying to do all three at once covering so much ground created some problematic sentences. Proposal 10 is closer to what I was trying to do, even though it under-emphasizes the difference between American and E.U. approach and attitudes that is so significant.

Anyway, I am open to trying to improve the deficiencies in Proposal 4, and welcome your suggestions. I have created a place to work on it here.

--David Tornheim (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no difference in the American approach vs. European approach when it comes to scientific research. Regulatory bodies that answer to public opinion don't reflect the actual research. The bans and reticence in Europe have nothing to do with the science and everything to do their constituents and the potential financial implications on these countries very tiny farming industries. Now that's an interesting avenue to bring up but it has nothing to do with the actual research. Opinion doesn't matter. The fact that some countries are less receptive to GMOs (though they've likely been eating them for a couple decades now) has nothing to do with the safety of eating GMOs. The two sources: Domingo, who focuses on literally the worst scientific paper I've seen in years, and Krimsky who couldn't even get published in a journal of any impact and makes money off of selling intentionally contrarian books that exceed at ignoring the mass of research that disagrees with his premise. The idea that they're supposed to stand up against the most recent reviews (which include American and European and Asian and South American scientists as opposed to an American vs. European diametric) doesn't hold water. Capeo (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

We even have a source that explicitly states the consensus is in Europe too. There's another out of Kenya representing African scientists also saying there is a consensus, "Empirical evidence shows the high potential of the technology, and there is now a scientific consensus that the currently available transgenic crops and the derived foods are safe for consumption (FAO, 2004).". I can't remember why we decided to keep those two out of the proposals, but I think it was because we already had plenty of direct consensus quotes (e.g. the citation overkill claims). Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The 13 year old FAO source is disallowed per WP:MEDRS, as well as subsequent studies. Sources no more than 5 years old are preferred (see your comments re Panchin). petrarchan47คุก 06:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"The 13 year old FAO source is disallowed per WP:MEDRS" would actually violate MEDRS as we're mostly focusing on review articles in that recommendation. This is one thing we really haven't discussed here yet. High-level scientific organizations like FAO, WHO, etc. don't put out consensus statements every five years just for us if things are staying the same. What MEDRS recommends with high quality sources like this that are over 5 years old is to look for newer statements by the organization that show them doing a 180 saying there isn't a scientific consensus. If they haven't changed course, they're not going to repeatedly mention things are par the course. In a nutshell, statements from high-level organizations like this stay regardless of age unless they or other similar organizations say the science has changed direction. We've had quite a few conversations at MEDRS that taking the 5 year guidance to strictly mean any sources older than that are no good is not an appropriate use of the guideline.[15] Part of that is to prevent situations where the mainstream science moves on and doesn't publish as much on the topic, while adherents still try to make a case. Enforcing a strict 5 year rule in that case creates major WP:WEIGHT issues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with KoA. This is a misunderstanding of the rules of thumb in MEDRS. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've refactored my above comment to depersonalize it at Kingofaces43's request. They rightly pointed out that it was directed too much at the editor and not the evidence. Apologies to all. Frustration got the better of me. Capeo (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Opabinia, you said that Domingo includes Seralini. I have not been able to verify that, where is it located within the paper?
• Secondly, Seralini was retracted for reasons that are less than orthodox,** and has since been republished. The study replicated Monsanto's model that they have used to prove safety to government agencies. The only difference was that Seralini extended the time beyond Monsanto's 9 months. Problems were observed beginning at 10 months. The attacks on his work were somewhat unique in the scientific world, as Krimsky notes. He has not been discredited; the results are considered important. A large, full blown cancer study attempting to replicate his results is now underway in the EU (see:Reuters,Seralini's response,Industry response). He has won a few defamation lawsuits*:

"A scientific fraud where the methodology used to reinforce written advance results." These are the words written by Jean-Claude Jaillet and published in the magazine Marianne. Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, author of a scientific study on the long-term chronic toxicity of Roundup, had filed a complaint for defamation following the publication of these two articles ... On 6 November 2015, following a criminal investigation three years, the 17th Criminal Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance in Paris has sentenced the authors, the newspaper and its journalist, this charge carried by Marianne, for public defamation against a public official and public defamation of researchers and CRIIGEN.* petrarchan47คุก 05:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"The study replicated Monsanto's model that they have used to prove safety to government agencies." This is factually incorrect. What commonly is referred to here is a study done by Hammond et al. that used the same number of rats, but used them for the appropriate length of time. Seralini did not replicate this because they did a longer term experiment that required more rats to have actual meaningful results.[16] The retraction occurred due to pretty standard reasons as much as Seralini supporters wanted to try to make it look like something nefarious. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Krismky is an anti-GMO advocate who can be summarily dismissed honestly. Seralini's study has been discredited and it did not use the same methodology as the Monsanto's study. You can't simply extend a study using rats that are known for health issues after 10 months. There's a reason different strains of rats can only be used for set amounts of time and still give viable results. The EU study has nothing to do with Sealini's credibility and everything to do with the difference in public perception and fears in Europe. Something that has no bearing on the science. In the same vein Seralini winning defamation lawsuits has nothing to do with the credibility of his work and quite literally had nothing to do with his paper. Most European countries have extraordinarily strict defamation laws when compared to the US. Those cases would never have even made it to trial here. And, again, it doesn't matter because it had nothing to do with the actual study he conducted. It was simply that extremely strong wording was used and basically called him a charlatan which is enough to win a case on in many EU countries. No bearing on the veracity of his study at all. Capeo (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Capeo, That's a lot of OR on your part. Seralini's model is presently being replicated in a $23M study in the EU. It seems there is a preponderance of American editors working on the GMO issue, and Wikipedia could end up with a skewed view, one that, as is being suggested by many proposals, dismisses altogether the voices of GMO critics. If Krimsky can be dismissed due to his advocacy, certainly Pamela Ronald, with 2 retractions in her wake, open about her GMO advocacy, should also be summarily dismissed, Instead she is used as the number 2 source for Proposition #1's "scientific consensus" claim. petrarchan47คุก 04:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, I'm not sure what you mean by "have not been able to verify that"; the Domingo paper extensively cites Seralini's work. His name appears, by my count, 24 times in the text. If you mean the specific, discredited paper, obviously that isn't cited, because Domingo's paper was published a year earlier. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, glitch on my part. Seralini's 2012 paper was not retracted for reasons listed in the COPE guidelines. It cannot be considered discredited any more than the Wikipedia page about this affair can be considered reliable. Here are reliable sources that discuss what many say was an unfair attack on yet another scientist whose GM research found problems.**. The more important question is, how do you see mention of (pre-2012) Seralini impacting the reliability of Domingo 2011? If I've missed this, my apologies. petrarchan47คุก 04:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The poor statistical practices identified in Seralini 2012 weren't new to that paper or study; they only came to wider attention due to the amount of publicity that accompanied the publication of the paper. Knowing that Seralini published poor statistical work in 2012 means it's worth being skeptical of his older work using the same techniques. Indeed, Domingo cites Seralini 2007 (doi:10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5, a reanalysis of data from a Monsanto study, not his own work) and contrasts Doull 2007 (doi:10.1016/j.fct.2007.08.033, a re-re-analysis that examines Seralini 2007) as if they are simply two different views of equal "weight". But in fact the criticisms in Doull are very serious, and closely parallel the concerns about statistics raised in response to Seralini 2012. For one thing, Seralini's reanalysis fails to correct for multiple comparisons, as well as either failing to perform or failing to document more subtle necessary corrections. What they present as adverse effects do not show the biologically expected patterns, i.e. consistency across sexes and dose-response effects. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

There was also a lot of handwaving by those in the Seralini affair about the paper not being retracted for "reasons listed in the COPE guidelines", even though the editor specifically cited the study as being unreliable as the COPE guideline justifying retraction.[17] I don't think we need to spend additional time with arguments trying to claim the debunked Seralini study was legitimate. There's also a difference between retracted pseduoscience of Seralini versus a voluntary retraction by Ronald who found errors and sought to actually correct them. The latter is what we expect reputable scientists to do, and such retractions are not a blemish on WP:RS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)