Jump to content

Talk:Genetically modified food

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Props888 (talk | contribs) at 01:07, 19 March 2011 (→They don't necesarily help feed the poor: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology


I removed the following as there are way too many. I have pasted them here in case some need to be recued. David D. (Talk) 22:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename page to Genetically Engineered Food, redirect Genetically Modified Food

This article states in the opening line "more accurately called genetically engineered foods". Why is this article not labeled Genetically Engineered Food? I would like to suggest we rename the article and set up a redirect for "Genetically Modified Food". If you have any objections, let them be heard.

Jaycorrales (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In scientific circles genetically modified refers to both conventionally modified and engineered organisms. I'm going to see about moving this article. II | (t - c) 23:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added some new information

added inforation from studies hat were done by Berkley and the University of MichiganMatsuiny2004 (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived old discussion

This page was becoming quite a mess, which is a reflection of the mess that the article also is. I've gone ahead an archived all of the old discussion (from 2003 to 2008), as it was just waiting for vandals and biased individuals to come and continue commenting on years-old topics. If something that was previously here is not here now, and you think it is still relevant to the current version of the article, please raise the issue again using the "new section" button at the top of this page. This will put newer sections at the bottom, which is where they should be.

Also, I've left a couple of topics here that I feel are important. The first one is the list of references that were removed from the page in 2005. I don't know if any of them have been restored, or what, but I didn't want the list to get lost in the archive. The remaining topics are those that have received response in 2009. (No edits were made to the page in December 2008, so I didn't have to worry about carry-over topics.) Hopefully, we can keep this talk page clean from now on, as we focus on improving the article itself. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FDA

The following information was recently added to the article's lede and I moved it here for discussion:

  • To add to this list, on September 18th, 2008, the Food and Drug Administration sent a draft guidance for industry on the regulation of genetically engineered (GE) animals under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The guidance was titled "The Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable rDNA Constructs". This guidance has since been updated, with a final draft created and released January 15th, 2009. This guidance is available for reading at the following website [9] by clicking the ‘Guidance for Industry #187 - Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable Recombinant DNA Constructs’ link. The FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has been working with developers of GE animals on both early stage and more mature applications. “At this time, it is our intent to hold public scientific advisory committee meetings prior to making decisions on GE animal-related applications" said Bernadette Dunham, D.V.M., Ph.D., director of CVM. The FDA also mentioned that they have “so far not approved or authorized any GE animals for use in food. However, we are reviewing applications requesting approval of GE animals intended for food use. We can not predict when we will complete those reviews, but we will not approve any GE animal for food use unless we find that the food from those GE animals is safe. It would be illegal to introduce food from an unapproved GE animal into the food supply without FDA permission. We work closely with GE animal producers to make sure that they keep good records of their animals and that none enter the food supply without FDA approval.” [10]

This definitely doesn't belong in the lede and needs significant rewrite and "wikification" to be included anywhere. All it really says is that the FDA hasn't officially come to any conclusions yet (all the discussion is about guidelines and draft proposals) and they intend to study it more, something which could be conveyed with far fewer words. Doc Tropics 16:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links recently cut -- seeds of deception overview, soil association and Bendrook on the yield effects

Thanks for the recent cleanup Doc. Noticed you removed a couple things which could be discussed:

  • Genetically Modified Ingredients Overview from Seeds of Deception is a nice overview and the percentages that it displays should be investigated further. It provides some sources; the NASS one doesn't seem to have a neat overview like this. We have the information for the UK, but not the U.S. and the rest of the world.
  • Bendrook's 1999 report is a decent source on Roundup Ready crops. Yield drags around 6.7%; herbicide applications 2 to 5 times larger. I'm inclined to believe that Vasilikiotis is correct and he was the director of the Board of Ag [11].
Hi, and thanks for bringing this up on the talkpage! Let me try to address your concerns in order:
  • regarding UK Organic Group Exposes Myth that Genetically Engineered Crops Have Higher Yields, this site seems very questionable to me. They are pretty obviously an anti-GM group and with such a bias I really want a chance to examine their sources. If the sources they are working from are reliable, I'd rather quote them directly. I don't object at all to providing a link to the "Seeds of Destruction" site in the EL section, but I have questions about their use as an RS for references.
  • regarding the second item and its inclusion: I'm not questioning this one as an RS, I'll accept it for that purpose; my issue is with the way the information is presented, which was so misleading as to border on erroneous. As noted in previous sections of this talkpage, the majority of GMOs are not modified for greater yield, but for better flavor, longer shelf-life, resistance to disease, etc. Including the study in this article would require careful handling, and a major rewrite from the previous version, to insure that all this is explained in a clear and balanced fashion. If you feel strongly that the info merits inclusion then I'd be happy to work with you towards a rewrite.
  • regarding Bendrook vs Vasilikiotis and Roundup Ready - um, I honestly don't remember this bit and need to review my own changes more thoroughly. It's entirely possible I screwed up and deleted something unintentionally when I was making other changes.
  • re your suggestion that more info on profitability is needed: yes, I agree strongly!
I'll be very happy to further discuss these, or any other points, and to work with you towards producing a high quality article. Thanks again, Doc Tropics 20:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting your changes I do not see them as accurate. I think it is fair for people to know that there are organic ways of doing this. Removing the information I added makes this article extremely biased. It is controversial as well so I think the information the argument should at least be represented. The link were also credible and refuted some of the points made. Therefore I revert until further discussion. I think this section need some changes made, but ones that make sure whoever sees this should have access to both sides and the point that this is controversial should at least be emphasized. I have tried to do some clean up and temporarily deleted the link mentioned early from the UK and replaced it with direct link there is the study from berkley as wellMatsuiny2004 (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matsuiny2004, I disagree with you very strongly on this: the article is about GM foods. Yes, there is controversy, but it's is mentioned in its own section and has its own article; that's exactly how an article is supposed to be written. This page is not about Organic Farming, nor is it about Organic Alternatives to GM Foods. Such excessive and repeated discussion of Organics vs GM is in direct violation of WP policy regarding Undue weight|undue weight. Your repeated insertions into the article were entirely inappropriate, and removing them was the right thing to do. I'm going to remove them again, hopefully for the last time. Doc Tropics 04:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said you would discuss this which you are not doing. The article mentions the yields of GM crops thus it would make sense to compare the yields. I am not biasing the argument I am using data from universities to compare the quantities. The article mentions it in comparison as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsuiny2004 (talk • contribs)

I left the "Crop Yield" section although it requires significant rewrite. Please understand that while I am willing and even happy to discuss improving the article, WP policies are non-negotiable. The article has a "Controversy" section, and controversy related items goes there, not there and every other paragraph. Info about Organic Farms goes in the article about Organic farms, not here. Doc Tropics 04:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crop yield section contains reference to studies by Janet Carpenter "A 2010 article summarised the results of 49 peer reviewed studies on GM crops worldwide.[51][52]" It might be worth pointing out the source of Dr Carpenter's financing is CropLife International, a consortium of biotech companies and associations, or as they put it, "the global federation representing the plant science industry. Our member companies are committed to supporting sustainable agriculture through innovation in crop protection, plant biotechnology and seed production."

I read the undue weight policy and do not see it as applying to what I had put up on green houses. I was not promoting a minority viewpoint I was trying to be comprhensive. Greenhouses are not necessarily related to organic farming. The sentence about strawberries was relevant to greenhouses since they can achieve that without genetic modification. If that is too much of a problem then you could at least remove the reference to the strawberries. You have kept up uncited information, but removed information that I have cited and consider relevant. How is that not biased?Matsuiny2004 (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not plugging a minority viewpoint just providing info that is well cited and there are many claims in this article about genetic engineering that seem to be making bold claims. Such as the statement about plastics in future developments. It was discussing bio plastics so I saw it appropriate to add. Bioplastics is not considered to be related to organic farming either. So you have made two claims that are not backed by any evidence nor have to do with plugging a minority view.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually after looking at the future developments section and checking the sources they both mention transgenic plants which is actually a seperate article thus not making them relevant to this article at a minimum. I just looked at another citation which discusses forest trees and did not see much if any reference at all to food. Last I checked humans did not eat trees or wood. I saw you reverted, please check your sources. They do not belong hear and you are beginging to contradict yourself. Matsuiny2004 (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here is what I removed

http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2006/news06.jan.htm#jan0603 Proteomic profiling and unintended effects in genetically modified crops, Sirpa O. Kärenlampi and Satu J. Lehesranta 2006 (this link now refers to genetically modified forests)

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03431.x%7Cdoi=10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03431.x%7Cjournal=The Plant Journal (dead link)

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120090040/abstract (links to biopolymers should be in plastics)

You have repeatedly removed properly sourced and relevant material and replaced it with highly dubious content that doesn't belong on this page at all. Your editing is highly disruptive, counter-productive, and has consistently lowered the quality of the article. Your comments indicate you have no meaningful grasp of either the subject or wikipedia policies. I need to get some advice and consider the most effective way to proceed. Doc Tropics 05:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not replace anything If you noticed I was trying to find the links I removed so you could look at them. The articles specifically mention transgenic plants which is its own article on wikipedia please put them there. You have not even made a case for their relevance.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about, I didn't insert any information into the article at all, I merely removed unsourced POV and rewrote some bad prose. I haven't added any information of my own, just tried to clean up what is there already. Doc Tropics 05:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adn I have reverted Matsuiny2004's edits again. There was a nice mix of off-topic undue weight and POV pushing there. I would suggest that this editor discuss his changes and gather talk page consensus on them before trying to reinsert them again. Whether deliberately or not, these edits are turning the entire article into what sounds like a giant controversy section and presents opposing viewpoints as if they were of equal wieght and credibility which they aren't.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the major problems here is the basic structure of the article. It shouldn't reproduce material that's dealt with in depth in other articles - it should summarise and link. Work out what the main heading are, and then fill them. But also figure out what's covered well in other articles. It isn't just this article that's a mess, it's the whole network as GM articles. Finally, you can't give undue weight to any position.

One thing to bear in mind is that the main comparison isn't GM vs. organic ag, it's GM vs conventional ag. It's certainly appropriate to draw comparisons with organic ag in some places, but things like gene contamination should probably be dealt with in an article about organic ag, and linked to from here. On one hand, articles need appropriate context so that they can stand alone. On the other hand, Wikipedia is hypertext, and we should generally assume that information is only a click away. Guettarda (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help and suggestions! All are good, useful ideas, and Guettarda made an especially relevant point: It's not just this article, but the entire network of related topics that needs attention. We can't just address the probelms here as if they existed in a vacuum. I'm currently involved in a couple of other complicated, time-consuming article cleanups, but now I'm hoping to wrap those up quickly in order to focus more attention on this page and its close cousins. Thaks again, Doc Tropics 14:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the controversy section on this page should be moved to the actual controversy page and then on this page have a summary of those concepts. I will also point out I did not write it. The only contributions I know of being mine are adding sources to this article such as the crop yield section, splitting off the politics section from the controversy section and splitting the methodology and theories off from the intro. as well as adding some sources in miscellanious places. Matsuiny2004 (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matsuiny, I definitely agree with your suggestion regarding the controvery section. Since we have a complete article on that topic, this section could be trimmed and consolidated to good effect. Feel free to jump right in  : ) Doc Tropics 13:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will soon just might take some time, there is a lot of information :)Matsuiny2004 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are going to need experts or people who are from the actual section. I am overwhelemd just from reading through it. It is amazing how much has been put into that small section. I think any material that is moved from here will need to be discussed with the people on the controversy section. Having an ecologist as one of the experts could help out. It is part of the controversy as well as what has to do with the other information. I am not good with ecology so it would have to be somebody else. It may help to have a person with a holistic mind set or systems theory background. There seem to be alot of interconnections in this article. Environmental science background and probably by extension environmental genetics background would be helpful too. Matsuiny2004 (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to Ramdrake: It was not the legitimacy of the source that caused me to remove it. It was not seeing the information in the cited source that it was supposedly meant to back up. It may be in the full version, but that requires the person to pay. Either that or you saw something I did not see when reading through the source. If the second reason is the case then I do not have any problems with the use of said source. Matsuiny2004 (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

look at bottom of page to see changes that have been made. Matsuiny2004 (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clarifying the article

this section can be used for clarifying the article. Feel free to add.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will start off by pointing out that there is overlap with industrial agriculture and genetically modified food as well as overlapping with the concept of agriculture in general. Maybe this article could be clearer by focusing more on what the actual concept of genetically modified food is?Matsuiny2004 (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets brake down the word genetically modified food for a second. genetic modification in itself is a broad word and I do not think that people really understand what it is. On top of that we have the word food which is another extremely broad concept. I think we can assume the genetic modification being talked about in this article is genetic engineering. That would be much clearer although still broad since genetic engineering is not a fully understood concept either and can encompass many other concepts and ideas.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some other overlap I see is with bioplastics, biotech which is not so far as I know considered the same as genetic engineering, climate control in farming (greenhouses) and the use of genomes (which does not need to be considered genetic engineering)Matsuiny2004 (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this article has been added to the genetic engineering and environmental issues categoriesMatsuiny2004 (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

article ideas

this section can be used for article ideasMatsuiny2004 (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could be added that genetically modified food is a broad concept and then what it encompasses can be explained.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the health risks be included in the controversy section?Matsuiny2004 (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good idea would be to add a section talking about GM food regulations. There doesn't seem to exist any article on it. Eroubis (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

changes to controversy section

here I will place and explain the changes I have made to the controversy sectionMatsuiny2004 (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what it looked like before changes were made http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_food&oldid=280228772

I am still working on it though.This is what I have so far http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_food&oldid=280258869

I am not sure what to do with sources 17 and 18. They seem to deal more with with world hunger, overpopulation, family planning and birth control (these all seem like very broad concepts). These are still important I am just not sure how to connect them to the controversy.

Most of the other information was either uncited or if it was cited I removed dues to confusion, not knowing point it was attempting to achieve, contradiction or redundancy. Matsuiny2004 (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matsuiny2004 (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As said in another section, I think we are going to need experts or people who are from the actual section. I am overwhelemd just from reading through it. It is amazing how much has been put into that small section. I think any material that is moved from here will need to be discussed with the people on the controversy section.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will also mention that I think I will leave up summarizing this to the people in the controveersy section or an expert. At this point in time I am not sure how this should be done Matsuiny2004 (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is going on in an edit like this, where tons of material is being removed with no edit summary? Are you even reading the article before editing, because here [12] you add a reference which is already in the article. II | (t - c) 05:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it was uncited please feel free to add it back. I am just trying to shorten it. Yes I had to use the same source twice I could not find others. If it is redundant then yes please change my edits. I am no expert.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groan

"Typically, genetically modified foods are plant products: soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil. For example, a GM food might be a pig..." Typically a pig is a plant? •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a mess as is. If you can find something that says they are plant products or not that would help.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we use thread titles which are more descriptive please? II | (t - c) 05:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ground rules: use edit summaries, note when references are removed and why

I'm seeing some troubling actions in Matsuiny2004's edits. For example, he copypasted a bunch of information to the crop yields section. I suggest that we set up a basic rule of using edit summaries, otherwise the edits get reverted. Please try to add a basic minimum of formatting for the references. These are just things which will make other people much nicer since they make other people's jobs much less onerous. And try to keep the edits down around 3-5 per day.

what is an edit summary? Maybe we could have a wikify notice for information that has been copypasted?Matsuiny2004 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I came across a bit harsh. When you edit, you should see a white box which has the words "Edit summary" above it. Please explain your edit n that box and note when you've removed a reference and why. And please try to do minimum formatting of references -- title, date, author or publisher. II | (t - c) 20:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining :). I think I am leaving the rest up to the others. I just do not think I have the skills to edit this page. I am more the person who adds information and allows others to alter it to the articles needs. In other words I am a researcher. Good luck to the people fixing this page. I can still help if needed especially for citation gathering. although other people will probably need to review it. Matsuiny2004 (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is cotton listed as a food?

Why is cotton listed in the chart of GM foods? LovesMacs (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cottonseed oil is why. LovesMacs (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Risk

Arystarca made two changes (08:20, May 29, 2009), which I undid.

1. He added a qualification, "...people should not be offered food that may carry any degree of risk resulting from genetic modification." I deleted this because the groups he is referencing also object to other sources of additional risk, per their interpretation of the precautionary principle.

2. He deleted the sentence, "This argument assumes that genetically modified foods present risks not present in traditional foodstuffs, which are demonstrably not free of risk." as argumentative. I had placed it there because it explains the logic, since those who object to GM foods believe there are inherent additional risks in all GM foods, while those who do not so object argue that either that there are no such risks or that they are minimal or acceptable. It is not an argument either way.

I hope this satisfactorily explains my changes satisfactorily. --Zeamays (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Honestly, the line attempts to diminish the claims of those who have problems with GM foods without a substantive basis (like a source) -- it should be axed or supported.

You are describing the controversy surrounding the use of genetically modified foods, which the line does not really describe or discuss. Furthermore, the most significant concern about GM food arises from the genetic modifications themselves; the modifications foremost fuel concerns about impacts to heirloom seeds and human health.

The line I deleted implies there is a significant risk on the same level or similar to the "assumed risk" of GM foods, which (to my understanding) is not equivalent. Traditional foods grown without the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides have been have been cultivated and consumed for millenia. So what risks are you trying to keep us aware of? Is it improper food handling? Is it allergies? Either of these situations aren't attributed to a potentially inherent "fault" in traditional food; but the anti-GM side is concerned about the unknown and known inherent "faults" of GM food.

The line is less biased with support and a short discussion rather than a parting shot. But in order to do that, you will have to depart from the heading of the topic. For this reason, I suggested that a mere description of the anti-GM argument would be appropriate and fair, because that is the actual controversy. But if you want to present the pro-GM argument, you should have something to back up the claim that there are risks associated with traditional foods and what those may be.Arystarca (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Diseases

The whole section on New Diseases seems to me irrelevant to this article. You can only genetically modify organisms, not essential amino acids, as this section appears to claim. I am tempted to delete the whole section. Maproom (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might fit better at dietary supplement. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in total agreement, I read the article and it seems to have nothing to do with GM foods.69.132.43.17 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the section. I have no objection to its content, I just don't think it belongs in this article. Maybe its creators can find an article where it would be appropriate - dietary supplement as suggested above, or tryptophan. Maproom (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gupta "report"

I have removed the summary of this "report" as I cannot find any evidence that it has been published in a reliable source. This was added in Feb 2009 by User:Micyclebicycle . The closest I can find to a source for this text is http://www.indiagminfo.org/four/human%20health.htm, an Indian anti-GM website that described it as a "preliminary investigation". Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"American Academy of Environmental Medicine"

Why on earth is the article quoting this fringe group in preference over real medical and scientific organisations, such as the AMA or the National Academies? This appears to me to by undue weight at its worst.

In May of 2009, an alternative medical association promoting environmental medicine, the "American Academy of Environmental Medicine", published a position statement citing multiple animal studies suggesting that GM foods may pose health risks, including allergies and immune system function, infertility, insulin regulation, and "metabolic, physiologic, and genetic health."[AAEM 1] The American Academy of Environmental Medicine is a controversial group[AAEM 2][AAEM 3] which certifies practitioners of clinical ecology.

  1. ^ http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
  2. ^ ACOEM position statement. Multiple chemical sensitivities: idiopathic environmental intolerance. College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. J Occup Environ Med. 1999 Nov;41(11):940-2.
  3. ^ Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, second edition, 416-17 (2000).

I've removed this from the article, I plan on replacing this with a summary of a 2002 report by the Royal Society, probably the oldest and most respected scientific society in the world. Are there any objections to this change? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the most prominent discussions of the issue sounds about right to me. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The AAEM is a group that is estranged from mainstream medicine and is not a reliable source on medical topics. My source: Murphy M (2000). "The "elsewhere within here" and environmental illness; or, how to build yourself a body in a safe space". Configurations. 8 (1): 87–120. (non-free link). It's pretty weird when the best source I can find on a purportedly medical group is in a literary journal. Eubulides (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with those above. Using the RS RS (Royal Soc RS) would be great. Verbal chat 11:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I was the one who earlier had inserted the references to show that the AAEM is a fringe group without support from mainstream medical societies. --Zeamays (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very little actual information / numbers on benefits of GMO

Hi, I think the article could do with a bit more detail with regards to evidence of crop performance / economics. Unomi (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted the graph showing the adoption of GMO crops by US farmers to address this point. Anti-GMO folks generally seem to ignore the fact that adoption by farmers (who in the US are free to choose what to plant, unlike the situation in some other countries), is the best argument for the value of these seeds. --Zeamays (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The graph is excellent, thank you for providing it! Doc Tropics 15:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted section: Developing countries and GM crops

I have deleted this entire section, which was recently added. The section is an exact quote, and although properly referenced, it is copied verbatim from the promotional material for a book ('Undying Promise: Agricultural Biotechnology’s Pro-poor Narrative, Ten Years on' Glover, D. (2009) STEPS Working Paper 15, Brighton: STEPS Centre). Someone might want to summarize the book and provide a discussion of the opposing viewpoint, but this quote was one-sided and promotional in nature. --Zeamays (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can this article have its links seperated into pros vs anti gmo links? itd make it easier to understand whats going on rather than jumble them all together, thanks! --64.228.135.70 (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 17900781

This was removed with the justification that one of the authors works for Monsanto. The author affiliations from the paper are listed below (in the same order as they are in the paper). Tim Vickers (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutics, Division of Toxicology, Department of Pharmacology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, 1018A Briedenthal Building, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KS 66160-7417, USA
  • Gaylor and Associates, LLC, 453 County Road 212, Eureka Springs, AR 72631, USA
  • Institute of Toxicology and Environmental Hygiene, Technical University of Munich, Hohenbachernsrasse 15-17, D-85354 Freising Weihenstephan, Germany
  • Postgraduate Medical School, University of Surrey, Daphne Jackson Road, Manor Park, Guildford GU2 7WG, United Kingdom
  • Cantox Health Sciences, Inc., Suite 308, 2233 Argentia Road, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 2X7
Cantox is/was (changed name I think) a scientific and regulatory consulting firm whose role is defined as to "protect client interests while helping our clients achieve milestones and bring products to market". He was previously hired for other Monsanto sponsored studies about Glyphosate and Aspartame (IIRC).--Nutriveg (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ian C Munro is currently a professor at the University of Toronto. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise Nutriveg to avoid making potentially controversial statements about living persons without presenting reliable sources. Regardless of this individual's employment history, authors of scientific papers often have financial interests in their work. If proper peer review is practised, there's no reason to conclude that all work by such authors is unreliable. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think making an mistaken claim about who somebody's employer is really counts as a controversial statement. I've added a note to the article that Monsanto paid for the panel of toxicologists to asses the original paper, which seems reasonable information to include. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biofortification

Biofortification should be mentioned, the other GM use is strenghtening of the crop against diseases, ... Links= http://www.harvestplus.org/sites/default/files/HarvestPlus_General_Brochure_2009.pdf 

      http://www.danforthcenter.org/newsmedia/NewsCoverageDetail.asp?nid=253
      http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241546123.pdf

Include to article 87.64.39.195 (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bust reference

Source 12 (http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/innovations/innovative-solutions/amflora) is broken due to the website being restructured, while I don't have the time to fix it (the article presumably still exists) it needs to repaired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarrik32 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate attention to the dangers of GM foods.

This article doesn't appreciate or acknowledge the dangers of GM foods, or even accurately portray the ones listed. For one, Arpad Pusztai had many experiments, and even though they could have been wrong, they were repeated by others with similar results.

Also, the methods of gene transfer aren't fully portrayed, thus eluding the truth. They do fire genes from a "gene gun" but that isn't a full representation of what actually happens. They coat the genes on thousands of small shards and fire them at a pack of cells hoping one will penetrate, and not completely destroy the cell. Then they use a method to kill out all the cells without the gene, but this and the fact the cell was ruptured can have serious negative side affects. Also, the genes can replace other genes or make others not function properly. There is real no science in this process, its aiming a gun and hoping you get a really lucky shot.

I have many other gripes about the lax attention to the dangers of GM foods and the means by which they are created. My only reference is "Seeds of Deception" by Jeffrey M. Smith.

I was more amused by a whole article essentially worded in the POVese currently popular without a single editor having a heart attack. JimScott (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you base your argument on one non-peer reviewed source called "Seeds of Deception." Was "Sowers of Discontent" sold out? How about "Flowers of Doom?" or "Fruits of Agony?"--216.227.89.35 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Smith is not a reliable source.
Here's a good fisking of some of Smith's rants: [13]
Alternatively, here's a good explanation of how Smith works: [14]
If you have been suckered in by Smith, you have my sympathies, but I would strongly recommend reading various different sources, and updating your opinion in light of the evidence; rather than cherrypicking whatever best suits your preconceptions, and then distorting it further to suit your argument. (If only Smith would take the same advice!)
This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article; it is meant to contain accurate text which reflects the consensus of experts and the balance of available evidence from reliable sources. This alone explains why the article says something very different to what Smith says.
bobrayner (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator seeds

Hi, I think there should be some info in the article about terminator seeds. Ie. genetically modified seeds that don't germinate and thus don't create new seeds, which means that new seeds have to be purchased each year from the company that makes these mutant organisms. cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.137.227 (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See hybrid seed. New seeds have to be bought every year regardless of GM modification. Terminator technology was developed at least in part to address the concerns of its irrational opponents - if something can't breed, there can be no gene transfer. Yet now the same people that claimed that gene transfer is a big problem claim that terminator technology is a problem. By the way, almost everything you eat is an unnatural mutant, created by nuclear irradiation and/or chemical mutagenesis. The only difference with GM food is that in this case we actually know what we are doing, not introducing random changes and hoping for the best. --Tweenk (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Growing GM crops

Does anybody know what source was used for the sentence:

"Indian national average cotton yields of GM cotton were seven times lower in 2002, because the parental cotton plant used in the genetic engineered variant was not well suited to the climate of India and failed."

There is no reference given.

I also don't understand the English. Seven times lower in 2002...Than what? 2002 was the first year that GM cotton was aiuthorised to be grown commercially in India. A reference Adoption of Bt Cotton and Impact Variability: Insights from India describes how GM cotton gave 34% higher yields than non-GM cotton on average in 2002. The one area where the results were worse for GM cotton was Andhra Pradesh which experienced a drought that year. The underlying germplasm of the three GM hybrids that had been approved in 2002, was not particularly well suited for extreme drought situations. Is this perhaps what the above sentence is referring to? If so, it needs to be re-written. SylviaStanley (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence in the same paragraph as the above is: "Though controversial and often disputed, economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented." There are two references given for the "documented benefits" - but no reference for the "often disputed" part. I will try to find a reference for it. However, it must be difficult to dispute the economic benefits if over 80% of the cotton grown in India now is GM cotton. SylviaStanley (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www.actionbioscience.org

I removed the recent additions to allergies as the sources were not reliable, particularly for what was written. This reference might warrant some further discussion though: Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health? by Arpad Pusztai. Also I could not find the article referring to the butterflies, but it could be alluding to this study. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is infested with pseudoscience

The article is unreadable and is essentially a marketing piece for organic farming. It contains numerous quotes from material published by unscientific groups with obvious agendas to promote organic produce, such as Soil Association, Center for Food Safety and Organic Center. It contains entire sections devoted to health risks, even though no real evidence of any such risks has been ever produced and they remain pure conjecture. The section on the EU "ban" is dishonest: the EU did not have a blanket ban but instead delayed the licensing process without any reason; and it focuses on some irrelevant Wikileaks cable in order to suggest that US has an ulterior motive, or that its government is taking bribes. The section about allergens does not mention that GM food is actually tested for allergens, while non-GM food is not. --Tweenk (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They don't necesarily help feed the poor

Read the article but didn't see it, well here's the source and quote: "Q: Supporters of GMOs say that they’re essential if we are going to be able to feed the planet?

Gillés-Eric Séralini: That’s ridiculous. For some time now, GMOs have been pesticide-producing plants protected by patents that are a mainstay of intensive agriculture. For the last 14 years they have been used to prioritise animal feed for rich countries ahead of food for the children of the poor.

Patented seeds increase famine and raise prices, as we have seen in their use to produce agrofuels.

Guy Riba: GMOs are a solution. But they are not the only one. What we should be fully promoting is selection by genetic markers. We can exploit and track natural diversity better within one species." http://www.combat-monsanto.co.uk/spip.php?article287 (I know the site may seem a bit biased but the one actually giving the information is an expert and his reasoning does seem sound) Also, it should be noted that even if you succeed in giving the plant the intended traits it could also give it unanticipated ones (good or bad).Props888 (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genetically_modified_food&oldid=419555497"