Talk:Genetically modified food

Template:WAP assignment

ArbCom case closed

Please note that the ArbCom case on GMO's has recently closed. The final decision is here (summary is here). This article is under a 1RR restriction and Discretionary Sanctions. Edit with appropriate caution. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks David. In many ways, this article is where much of the controversy started, that wound up up at ArbCom. It didn't need to be taken there, as I commented at the time right here. So here we are. I suggest that those wishing to edit here review the archives from the last six months or so. It's a lot of reading, but will give perspective on what happened. And David, thanks again for the cautionary post, and indeed, for your work. Jusdafax 23:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

restored deleted material

Looks likes a substantial amount of material critical of GMO's was removed without input from other editors or any attempt at consensus for the deletion here. I restored the material here. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the edits. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy where edits should be reverted solely because they weren't discussed first. As Aircorn mentioned in their edits, they condensed content due to weight issues. The first was valid as they pointed out that a whole paragraph was dedicated to the fringe minority view, while the mainstream point of view on the consensus only had one sentence. Similar for the second. Considering the edits stood for about a week without complaint, it seems like Aircorn made some good edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes WP:DRNC as it mucks up the consensus-forming process. Alexbrn (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I have restored Aircorn's edits which I judge to be far better than the text David Tornheim reverted to in terms of WP:UNDUE policy. jps (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I have once again restored the deleted material. This content is relevant and appropriately sourced and its removal is not supported by PAG. Please do not remove sourced content without discussing and getting a consensus for removal. Minor4th 19:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We had already mentioned that David's revert was inappropriate, multiple editors agreed Aircorn's version was better by resolving some weight issues, and you went and reverted anyways. I do suggest self-reverting at this point as your revert came at a time when multiple editors had already been using the talk page. We shouldn't need another trip to enforcement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my first edits and reasons given at the time[1][2]. One sentence covering the mainstream scientific view directly followed by a "however" paragraph from a "questionable" organisation and a two highly criticised studies is not close to due weight. If we wanted to include individual studies then in an ideal world all the studies that found no significant differences from feeding GM food should be mentioned as well. This sections should be written as a summary of the Genetically modified food controversies article which can deal with the individual studies better. Even in its current state it could be argued it gives too much weight to the minority viewpoint. Also given that the moratorium, which was the main point from the AAEM, is already mentioned then nothing has really been lost. Weight is part of neutrality, which is not just PAG but a pillor. AIRcorn (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aircorn:Your removal of sourced, relevant content that has been in the article unchallenged for months is disruptive editing - especially in this controversial topic area that is subject to discretionary sanctions and 1RR editing restrictions. Please self-revert and engage in further discussion and do not remove the sourced content until a consensus to do so is reached. Failure to do so may result in a request for arbitration enforcement of discretionary sanctions. I will leave a notice on your talk page as well. Minor4th 03:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The consensus here so far is that the removal was good and no argument has actually been made above for keeping it in. The reason it was untouched for months (which is not a valid reason for not editing it out anyway) was in part due to the ARB case. Also see Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 15#Controversy: American Academy of Environmental Medicine. AIRcorn (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aircorn:I second Minor4th's call that you self-revert. The material you added has been the article since its addition on October 27, 2015 here when it was added by Sweetbacteria. Although you and Ajpolino objected to it at the time, Kerdooskis and Petrarchan47 supported the addition by Sweetbaceria. In addition, two long terms editors in the GMO area (Lfstevens and Dialectric) were editing that same day and did not object to the addition. Two days later (October 29, 2015), Lfstevens made an extensive overhaul and cleanup to the article here and did not delete the material. Long term user KingofAces43 was editing on November 10, and filed no objection to. One of the ArbCom members NativeForeigner was also editing. Numerous other editors I am not familiar with made changes during that time and allowed the material to stand. You never responded to Petrachan47's last comment, and allowed the material to stay in the article over a month. You cannot simply edit war out the sourced material now that the ArbCom proceeding is over and after so much time has passed because you failed to act during the ArbCom proceeding. I will support action at ArbCom Enforcement if you do not self-revert. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

And for the record this is the paragraph that Aircorn is trying to edit-war out of the article:

However, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine ("AAEM") released a position paper calling for a moratorium on GM foods pending independent long term studies to investigate the role of GM foods on human health.[111][112] The authors asserted that "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects." The paper cited numerous animal studies showing adverse effects and posited that the biological plausibility, as defined by Hill’s criteria, in light of this data is that adverse health effects are also caused in humans.[113] A 2011 study found maternal/fetal pesticide exposure associated with GM crops in Quebec.[114] A leading critique, Gilles-Éric Séralini of theUniversity of Caen, and his team reported that rats fed GM corn developed tumors and organ damage in 2012 in theJournal Food and Chemical Toxicology.[115] After reanalyses of the results, and the paper was retracted by the publisher, Elsevier, on the ground that the study consisted of a limited number of test samples (Sprague-Dawley rats) to make any conclusive evidence on the adverse effect of GM on the rats.[116][117] Sprague-Dawley rats are known to develop tumours even under normal conditions.[118] But Séralini defended his study and republished the same findings inEnvironmental Sciences Europe in 2014, published by SpringerOpen.[119]

I did not see Petras reply until after she retired. AIRcorn (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• The deletion should be restored at once, in my view, per David Tornheim and others. I support action at ArbCom Enforcement if not done so. Jusdafax 08:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey all! I'm not sure why this conversation got so tense, but here's my two-cents:

I think the AAEM material should be removed. AAEM is decidedly a fringe group, they oppose wifi in schools, GMOs, fluoride in water, and thimerosol in vaccines. So when they criticize GMOs, it seems to me that it's not that notable. Their other position papers are not mentioned on Wi-Fi (or Wireless electronic devices and health), Water fluoridation, or Thiomersal. If someone feels a deep and otherwise insatiable need for having AAEM in the article, I'd vote we move it to the Genetically modified food controversies article. To have it here seems to give their position undue weight.

As for the rest of the paragraph, I think the back-and-forth about the Seralini paper belongs in the controversies article. It's definitely important material, but it seems like the dedicated controversies article is a better place for it.

Does anyone have a reason for why this material should be in this article rather than removed/in the controversies article? I'd be happy to discuss that! Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, AJpolino. The group is just about the most WP:FRINGE that we can find. jps (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That was part of the reason I decided to self-revert (even though I know it looks like I was giving in to the intimidation tactics above). I would like to see a response as to how AAEM compares to any mainstream science organisation, let alone the AAAS. I believe anyone who seriously thinks that this is a suitable source will call into question their competence at editing science related articles. As to the tension, welcome to a topic recently under Arb com sanctions. AIRcorn (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• AAEM is flake city. That suggests a compromise. Include the material on its other airhead views in this article, so that readers can make up their own minds about its weight. The other stuff is all primary research and should be removed unless/until backed up by a review. BTW, I hadn't noticed the recent appearance of this junk in the piece. That's why I didn't object back in the day. Shame on me. Lfstevens (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments about this edit I just made:

• I replaced the AAEM with a better source in the same edit. It is almost exactly the same length as the original. I was not familiar with AAEM when I first restored the deleted material. Thank you all for further information about AAEM. I believe the new source is much better, but welcome better sources that have called for a moratorium, and note that RS says that the EU has a "defacto moratorium", as do, I believe, other countries outside of EU.
• I moved the footnotes for AAEM to this sentence:

Some medical and environmental groups claim that the potential long-term impact on human health have not been adequately assessed and propose mandatory labeling[123] or a moratorium on such products.[105][106][108]

• I restored the deleted Seralini material, pending discussion on whether it is undue. I am open to the possibility that it is reduced, noting that it has an entire lengthy article devoted to it.
• I will further comment on mischaracterization of AAEM as "fringe". The group holds MINORITY opinions on at least some of the topics like WiFi and the group has accreditation.

--David Tornheim (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Issues vs controversies

General comment: There is the larger issue of what is in this article, compared to what is in the Controversies article, and what, in fact, should be defined as a "controversy," as opposed to simply an issue. This was one of the arguments that ran through the months of debate that lead up to the arbcom case, and it has not been resolved.

"Controversies" can't be used as a catchall, a convenient spot for troublesome items to be tucked away. The GMO food topic overall is not a stable or settled one in the world today, but neither is it one big controversy, within it, there are issues and then there are controversies comprising sides and events that can be documented as such. Sorting this out, taking a hard look at what has already been separated into the Controversies article, to see what may not belong there and what may be missing here, as far as topics, sections, and specific content, is really a first serious step to article improvement. --Tsavage (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding GM food and GM in general is large enough to justify a stand alone article by itself. It is the place to discuss all the little studies and get in depth into the science and politics behind GM. It is still also a subtopic of this article. There is probably scope to expand the controversy section here. The environmental aspects are woefully under-represented and from a science perspective much more supported. Almost all the problematic arguments tend to focus on the health aspects. AIRcorn (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring in part to reasoned discussions and RfCs on this page, about sections like "Public perception" and "Health effects" that would seem natural sections here, and concern over cramming a number of issues into a "Controversies" section here, and then referring things off to the Controversies article. Piecemeal editing without an overall framework is not the most efficient way to edit; it may be difficult or next to impossible to achieve more planned article development, but it still merits mention. What I didn't say or imply was that we don't need a GM food controversy article, rather, that it should contain actual controversies, not simply issues. --Tsavage (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually think we are agreeing in general about the structure of these articles. AIRcorn (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

More specficially to this discussion, with the (imo) catchall Controversies section we have now, it's difficult to evaluate what is being presented. Considering items in the context of logical sections like "Regulation," "Public perception," "Health and safety," or whatever exactly, things make more sense. I will go back and look at the archived recent discussions about what sections are missing here, and what perhaps shouldn't be in Controversies. A lot of that was completely sidetracked by the scientific consensus on safety issue and is now...buried. --Tsavage (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

One significant piece of buried discussion is the still-not-closed rfc 'RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section?' in Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 9. Dialectric (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone suggest dividing the controversy section into two sub-headings (e.g.Health and Safety and Other)? Keep the main the same but make it easier for the readers to find the section they are interested in. AIRcorn (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep this article about the stuff that is consensus and push the disagreements elsewhere. Think about the readers. The controversies are hugely complicated. People need us to give them the basics. Lfstevens (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Basics like a molecular diagram for the 'Structure of sucrose'? Dialectric (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't me! Lfstevens (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Lfstevens: "Keep this article about the stuff that is consensus and push the disagreements elsewhere" That's exactly the approach that imo leads to problems, it suggests that we structure content based on how well editors deal with editing, rather than by the needs of the subject. By this thinking, because there is disagreement over "safety," for example, or certain aspects of safety, stick safety in a Controversies section, and cover it in detail elsewhere, in a controversies article, disregarding the pretty common sense conclusion that one of the most basic questions a general reader is likely to have in mind coming to a GM foods article is, how safe is it? Or what is the public perception? Etc. --Tsavage (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

And to clarify, whether we're talking about finding consensus in the world at large or finding consensus among Wikipedia editors, same difference, as there seems to be little WP:RS/AC consensus out there, so it usually comes down to consensus in here. --Tsavage (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

We're stuck with each other. This war doesn't get won. We should present the best (secondary) evidence on safety and everything else. Article structure isn't about sources. It has to be about common sense and compromise given the steadfast disagreements. What procedure would you propose as an alternative? Lfstevens (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you ask. There's an approach to basic article development that I've been trying on another page that got some traction, and I think it can work anywhere. It's very easy to follow, practical, solidly policy-based, hard to game, and can be worked on by as few as one or two editors (even in the midst of a battle). It also kinda keeps every half-reasonable editor at least somewhat focused on the bigger picture, no matter how detailed and dispute-y things may get around a particular item. Sounds fantastic? I'll post it soon. --Tsavage (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Posted below as "Basic questions this article should be able to answer with ease." --Tsavage (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good way to get consensus on article structure! Lfstevens (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Basic questions this article should be able to answer with ease

Our goal is to write comprehensive, unbiased articles, in plain English, intended for general readers of all ages. With this broad target in mind, we can propose the most basic questions likely to be asked for this subject, and then, see if the article answers them, and how easily. Evaluation is based on simple usability testing which anyone can perform: pick a question, go to the article, and see how quickly you can find the answer, noting what steps you took.

Questions rely on our common sense, however, there are numerous FAQs on GM food, from many different sources, for extra input.

Please feel free to add to and edit this list, and use the list to literally test the article, as well as, of course, for article improvement, and also as a reality/context check in the midst of arguing the crap out of single, piecemeal points.

NOTE: The questions are not intended to be included in the article, they're only for evaluating the article, so don't be concerned with precise wording, unless a question is not clear to you.

• What are genetically modified foods? Easy to access a most basic explanation that is still enough to then look further.

• Basic pass. The first sentence and first paragraph give me a general idea, about same as a dictionary def of "genetically modified." Jumped to "Definition" section, which essentially repeats the lead. Checked "Process," which adds a little in a somewhat vague way: lab to field test. Overall, easy to get the most basic framing. --Tsavage (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• What is the history of GM foods? How widespread are they?

• Are GM foods safe?

• What GM foods are available?

Fail. From lead, vague idea that GM is mainly ingredient crops, like soy and corn, then jump to "Crops">"Fruits and vegetables" and halfway through first para, on papaya, I stop reading and scroll down, and down, and realize no easy answer is forthcoming. At minimum, a summary lead for each top-level section, and perhaps a table, like at Genetically_modified_crops#Crops. --Tsavage (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would improve on 'what GM foods are available now' with 'what gm foods have been available since the technology appeared', possibly a timeline/graph showing introductions and discontinuations. I would also like to see clearer economics information - what is the market breakdown for current past crops in dollars and percentages of total volume. Dialectric (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The table format as in "GM crops" could handle all that. Some people don't like tables for various reasons, but in this case, it has distinct presentation and editing advantages, it makes it easy to see what's going on. Sorting by certain columns would be useful, like crop name, and year introduced. --Tsavage (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

See the History q above. And does WP have a timeline widget? It would sure come in handy. Lfstevens (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

WP has the somewhat deceptively-named Wikipedia:EasyTimeline and Category:Timeline templates. I haven't run across any specific tool/widget that makes timelines using a GUI. Wikiproject Music has done extensive work with easyTimeline, as demonstrated here. Dialectric (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• How are GM foods regulated?

• Big subject, because you can't stop with the US.

Yes, big, and kinda critical to understanding the entire safety issue (not to mention scientific debate, economic issues, etc). Maybe draft a high level intro paragraph, written for comprehensive, concise readability (ideally, by someone who already has a good overview), then work backward to sourcing and balance, rather than building up piecemeal (ie, writing up US, EU, other countries, individually, then summarizing). --Tsavage (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Fail. Nothing in lead, except vague mention of regulation issues, jumped to "Regulation section," which only really mentions "marked differences between US and Europe" without detail, then gives a superficial description of multiple responsible agencies in the US. Checked "Controversies," which brings up issues but doesn't tie them to regulation. Labeling and ban map interesting but provided no explanation, and not covered in test. So there is some (US) regulatory info, and a bit of a world context (map, "Labeling" subsection), but what is easily found raises more questions than it answers (US vs Europe...and what about rest of world). Needs a proper summary section. --Tsavage (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• What new developments can we expect for GM foods: what's next, where is GM food headed?

• 'What new developments can we expect' is something of a crystal ball issue and I would not include it in an initial list of key coverage. Like pharmaceuticals, GMOs have many products in the testing pipeline, and many of these will receive RS coverage then never make it to market. Dialectric (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's a natural question, but not one we might look to an encyclopedia to answer, except I found it on a WHO FAQ, so there is a sourced answer. --Tsavage (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Leave this out. Speculative. Lfstevens (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we won't be able to cover it in an encyclopedic way, but that won't stop readers from asking the question. Some broad answers, like more herbicide- and pest-resistance, drought tolerance, nutrition-enhanced, fish, animals, other forms of GM than current GE methods, may be able to be sourced and appropriately coverd. --Tsavage (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Are GM foods labeled?

Part of regulation. Lfstevens (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Is GM food the same around the world?

• Do GM foods affect the environment?

How about "How do GM foods affect the environment differently from trad foods?"

• Why do we have GM foods: why were they developed, what are the benefits?

What is the intent of this question? Don't we have them because supply met demand, like any other products? Lfstevens (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• How are GMF different from trad foods?

General comments

That's a starter list - there are more questions, meanwhile, a point should be reached naturally where the basics have all been answered. If the article fails to provide easily accessible answers to basic questions, then we can assume that the article is significantly imbalanced and of poor quality. --Tsavage (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Dialectric: I hope you don't mind, I refactored your comment, splitting it and placing it under the relevant sections. --Tsavage (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)