Talk:Genetically modified food

Template:WAP assignment

caption for new corn image

User:Bmccoy1111 has added this pic to the article, and originally wanted the caption to read "Corn genetically engineered to self-produce Glyphosphate, for self-resistance to pests" (see this dif). I removed the caption in this dif and my edit note made 2 points:

1. the image is of corn, not GM corn (not that they look any different, but image is called "corn") I feel it is dishonest to misrepresent the image. GM corn does not look different from non-GM corn, but nonetheless, I think Wikipedia should not misrepresent anything.
2. also, there is no GM crop that can "self-produce Glyphosphate".

Later today Bmccoy1111 put a caption back in this dif. The new caption reads: "Corn that is resistant to Glyphosate, a commonly used insecticide". We have the same two issues - a misrepresentation and a description based on a lack of understanding. In this case the lack of understanding is that glyphosate is not an insecticide - it is an herbicide. The misrepresentation issue remains. I again deleted the caption except for the word "corn". We should not misrepresent the image, and if an image of GM corn is found, it should accurately describe the modification. Bmccoy1111 do you see the problems? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on that, I suppose,. However, there is no need to remove the sources after "safety issues". That is the whole reason I am mad at you for only keeping the sources that are on your side. I am not insulting you in any way, we can certainly agree to disagree.Bmccoy1111 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I wrote to you above about he source issue; please respond there. Again, this is not an internet discussion board - please stop behaving as though you are on one. This is a community working on a serious project. We work here, and we work together, as professionally as we can. Please stop running around and deleting things and please talk. You are editing in a disruptive way and it is going to get you blocked or banned - this is why it is unwise to learn to edit by jumping into a controversial article and making aggressive changes. Please slow down, learn how things work, and for pete's sake, discuss things. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Only controversial claims need citing in the lead section of an article. The part that you are adding references to is fully referenced in Genetically modified food controversies which is linked to in that section. Plenty of people would disagree with "GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" which is why it needs to be well referenced even in the lead. This isn't about 'sides'. I've removed the corn photo altogether - it's definitely not GM as it was taken in the UK where GM food can't be sold. We should probably have start a new thread to debate a suitable photo for the lead, assuming that the old one is problematic. SmartSE (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Smartse thanks for jumping in here! Quick note - the consensus statement is fully sourced in this article, between the lead and the Controversies section, which is copied from the lead of the Genetically modified food controversies article. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The only person who objected to the plum photo is Bmccoy1111; I would say restore til Bmccoy1111 can find an image of GM corn.Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to restore the plum photo until we can find a better one. Bmccoy1111 (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

deletion of material from body

In this dif, User:Bmccoy1111 deleted a big chunk of text from the body, with the edit note: "Removed "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.", because it is repetitive and already stated in the beginning of the article)". This deletion was later reverted by User:Thargor Orlando in this dif with edit note " Restoring current consensus version, see talk"

The reasons stated for the deletion by Bmccoy1111 are incorrect. As per The Manual of Style on the lead section - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section - the lead is supposed to be repetitive and the lead is only supposed to have content that is already in the body. You write the body first, and then you write the lead, summarizing the body. If something is not in the body, it should not be in the lead! Bmccoy1111 did not provide valid grounds for deleting this content from the body. User:Bmccoy1111 it is frustrating that you are making aggressive edits, and not talking, when you do not understand how Wikipedia works and you do not understand the subject matter very well. Please slow down, and talk about things. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll just leave this page alone until I understand Wikipedia more, as it is a very controversial subject at the time. Bmccoy1111 (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:Bmccoy1111 - I do not mean at all to drive you away... if you choose to continue to work on this article, please just slow down and discuss things. I will be happy to work with you and help you figure out how things work, if you want to learn here. If you want to learn on other articles, I wish you the best. Thanks for talking, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Time limit needed on RfC and "broad scientific consensus"?

Shouldn't a date be specified in the claim that, "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food" and in the accompanying Request for Comments (RfC)? That RfC ran from July to September 2013. For example, shouldn't the statement read something more like "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market as of mid-2013 and derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food"? Or make it two sentences like, "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food; this does not include foods introduced since mid-2013"?

To what extent might that "broad scientific consensus" extend to GM foods introduced since the most recent scientific article reviewed during that period?

For example, does that consensus include GMO apples, currently under regulatory review in the US and Canada? DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a date will inaccurately give the impression that the consensus has changed, when we'd be better off changing the wording outright if that consensus were to change. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That would give the implication that the consensus has changed when there is no evidence that it has. When and if evidence exists that the consensus has changed, then the appropriate changes would be made. BlackHades (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point. The scientific consensus is based on a few different things, but primarily it is based on an understanding of the biology involved in making a GM crop, the DNA and proteins involved, the key kinds of toxicity that are possible, and the regulatory process (which looks for those toxicities, and others). So anything that makes it through the regulatory process is therefore just like everything that came before, safety-wise. And there has still been no compelling experiment done, or finding made, that overturns any of the things upon which the consensus is based (things like "electron-microscope organisms' are pseudoscience that don't affect mainstream science). It would take something like that to make it worthwhile to date the consensus - some event that actually changed the consensus. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food"

Let me put it right up-front: I admit I am no expert on GMO food. But I am scientist and know how to dig scientific literature. Searching the literature for an hour or so, I do not find any broad scientific consensus that GMO is safe; rather, I found there is some controversy, and that some GMO foods are considered safe, while others are not. Moreover, some foods have not been extensively tested or need to be tested longer.

Please read, consider, and take a stance, on e.g., this review, in particular the 'Final remarks' therein if you're in a hurry: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412011000055

How can one state in this Wikipedia article that there is a broad scientific consensus? In the light of (even) one article (above), I must conclude: the statement quoted in the subject/headline is false. According to the article there is rather a 1:1 I'd like to ask the editor of the article to have a look at this. and consider that this wikipedia article is not neutrally written.

Let me quote from above review: "However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies (Domingo, 2007). The scientific community may finally be able to critically evaluate and discuss all that information, which was not possible until now. Scientists know quite well how different may be the information published in reputed international journals, which has been submitted to peer-review processes, from those general comments/reports not submitted to this selective procedure. "

This issue has been talked to death. Please review the Talk page above, and the archives. We even had a Request for Comment on it, which you can read here. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I've read that. Apparently no consensus in the discussion came out, and frankly, I didn't find the discussions very helpful, but rather of semantic nature.

The quotation I inserted above is from a peer-reviewed, scientific journal, and is a REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS on the topic; it is not, in comparison as quoted somewhere in the Talk page, from some unreliable news report. Broad agreement and consensus means something else. It would be good if people who make claims about scientific literature actually read it. Sorry for being so direct -- please do not misunderstand, I do not mean to attack with this.

In conclusion: we clearly have a scientific review of scientific literature, summarizing findings about research on the safety of GMO food: conclusions are that the effects from GMO food in general are unclear, and that much literature is clearly biased. This is hardly reflected in the phrase 'there is broad scientific consensus'.

Labelling

today user:BrianWo added content on labelling in these difs]. I moved that content in part into the Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms article in this dif and in part (as there was duplication) into the Genetically modified food controversies article, in this dif. This reason for this is WP:SUMMARY. Both the Regulation and Controversies articles are very very long, and we have worked hard to edit these articles so they are well organized and synced, and cover all the relevant issues. There is constant temptation to add material to this article but such efforts often bring detail that doesn't rise to the Lead of the split articles and so shouldn't be here either. Hope this makes sense; happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)