Talk:Séralini affair

Reminder - DS and 1RR

Reminder to those who are engaging in a revert tug-of-war the last day or so -- this article is subject to discretionary sanctions and has a strict 1RR per editor per page per 24 hour period, pursuant to the temporary injunction at the Arb case. Please keep in mind the spirit as well as the letter of the injunction. Minor4th 15:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Which you yourself M4 have broken today !!! -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Award

This addition mentioned an award from a German group that I removed due to weight concerns largely because we don't include awards glorifying a fringe subject and also because the underlying source paints a substantially different picture than the current mainstream description of the controversy. We already have quite a few notes under the support section with WP:FRINGE and WP:BALANCE in mind. That would have been the time to come to this page if anyone felt strongly about including it as there wasn't consensus for it, but it looks like Minor4th has readded the content. [1][2] We do need to be wary about including more information like this with weight in mind. Is there any reasoning for including this piece of content and the source? Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The award appears to be given by a small German pressure group of anti newklear scientists (less than 400 members) and anti newkular lawyers who I've never heard of. I think this is way WP:UNDUE and intend to revert. Neither organisation are prominent enough. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Minor4th 19:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, republished under peer-review

To say the article 'was not peer-reviewed' when republished in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, is an absurdity, and shows the writer does not understand science. Those scientists at the Environmental Sciences Europe, are independent peer-reviewers of the peer-reviewed research. They checked it, it was properly conducted. That's peer-review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 04:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluated the Séralini paper as republished in June 2014 and concluded, that the study “was inadequate for evaluation because the number of animals per group was small, the histopathological description of tumours was poor, and incidences of tumours for individual animals were not provided.”IARC monograph on glyphosate, p. 35, right column The study is only suitable to present an example of "junk science".--Shisha-Tom (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is Shisha Tom not pointing out who sponsored the study? Also notice that his link does not work. Re Monsanto sponsoring fantasy http://www.techtimes.com/articles/114226/20151208/scientists-hired-by-monsanto-say-weed-killer-glyphosate-does-not-cause-cancer.htm and here http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-monsanto-glyphosate-idUSKCN0T61QL20151117 prokaryotes (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The headline from Reuters says more about this than all the bluster in the entire history of this talk page: "Mixed message on weed-killer reflects reality of scientific uncertainty". Science can't prove a negative. The evidence is not definitive either way, and it is unlikely it will be in the near term. The only thing we do know with absolute certainty is that the Séralini paper is worthless. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Next time before you make bold statements about the scientific process i suggest you google for "science absolute certainty" and such. GL. prokaryotes (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Monsanto did not sponsor the IARC monograph; see pg 35. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Did this paper, the republished one, magically get peer reviewed since publication, somehow. That would be clever. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Science cannot prove a negative, in cases like this. It can prove beyond any rational doubt that there is no credible evidence of something, but as the cranks are forever reminding us, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Regardless, the Séralini study is worthless, and that is the only relevance here. Even if a link is one day proved between glyphosate and cancer in humans, which it absolutely has not been at this stage, it would not validate Séralini, because his work is, as we describe in the article, well below acceptable scientific standards. If you want to argue the toss about the evils of glyphosate (what am I saying? if? of course you do!) then this is not the correct venue. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We go by the reliable sources, here as linked above. Hence your comment resemble poor opinion, because it is in stark contrast to what the science actually states. If you want to preach that the study of S is worthless you should find a forum for that. prokaryotes (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@prokaryotes:Actually, why should I discuss with a person, who is not able to distinguish between an scientific organisation of the World Health Organization such as IARC, which classified glyphosate as probably carcinogen, and the company Monsanto, who opossed the IARC classification since spring 2015. Interestingly, IARC was able to classify glyphosate as possible carcinogen without the scientific rubbish of Seralini.--Shisha-Tom (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct. And the devil is, as always, in the detail. Extensive evaluation of people working with the product contradicts earlier findings suggesting a modest increase in risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but there is evidence from animal studies (other than those by Séralini) to suggest a plausible link. What that almost certainly means is that it is carcinogenic only at levels unlikely to be experienced by anybody. It also indicates that monitoring and further epidemiological studies are prudent. I will continue to use RoundUp in my garden, because it works, but I will be sure to follow the PPE and other safety instructions. Anybody who panics about RoundUp but still drinks alcohol or uses TCM products, is not behaving rationally. All agriculture uses herbicides and pesticides. All pesticides and I think most if not all herbicides are toxic at some level. Caffeine is a neurotoxin. It's a big, bad, scary world out there and we're evolved to survive it so for all the alarmism and the "Daily Mail oncological ontology project", the soundest advice is probably: don't be an idiot and you'll be fine :-) Guy (Help!) 20:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

JzG (also known as Guy) removes study links from Seralini

• Ironically admin JzG (Guy) removes peer reviewed study papers from Seralini, on the article about Seralini. DIF
• Additional he removes the mention that Seralini's paper are peer reviewed. DIF
• Removes key information, long part of the article that the study has been peer-reviewed. DIF
• JzG removes the republication as well. DIF prokaryotes (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No irony involved.

• Study by Séralni was cited directly to the study. That violates WP:PRIMARY. The article only exists because the original paper by Séralini is highly problematic, so it is very important to ensure that any other work by the same author is covered only with reference to reliable independent sources that establish its significance and validity. This is an absolutely standard application of policy and guidelines.
• I removed the redundant term "peer-reviewed" (any scientific paper that is not peer-reviewed is unlikely to make much impact), I also asked for clarification re the weasel words "some members of the scientific community and food safety authorities", which is hardly controversial.
• I changed "Reviewers instead checked that the content of the paper matched the previously peer-reviewed version" to "Reviewers checked only that the content of the paper matched the retracted original" because the former plainly sought to imply that the original peer-review was valid despite subsequent retraction, which is a problematic claim with any scientific publication. As it turns out, the correct statement of affairs was different again, as I later clarified here, and that in turn was later edited by I am One of Many her, an edit I reverted as implying the opposite POV, i.e. that the second journal was guilty of some malfeasance (rather than, say, simple incompetence) in republishing.
• I removed the citation to the republished paper as a source for the statement "Reviewers checked only that the content of the paper matched the retracted original" - because it doesn't support that statement in any of its forms, yours, mine, my revised version, or IaOoM's version, because the paper does not address the question of the journal's review process at all, nor should it, so it can't possibly be a source for a statement about that process.

Feel free to ask for clarification of any other edits, I am always happy to explain any edit I make. 22:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality

Recently admin JzG (also known under the name Guy) removed systematical all the mentions that Seralini's studies have been published in peer reviewed literature, and removed at least 2 related study papers (See DiF's in above section). Since the admin appears unwilling to discuss his edits (see above section), I ask for other opinions.

• 1. Should we include the mention that Seralini's papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature?
• 2. Should we include the studies which are discussed - or within the actual scope, of this article?
• 3. Should Arbcom enforce discretionary sanctions for admin JzG (See recent decision in regards to GMO's), since it seems to me that his edits are disruptive, and he shows no signs of willingness to work in a community environment, and to support neutral articles. prokaryotes (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Your third point needs to be taken up at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement not here. AIRcorn (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)oment

• Comment Most published studies should be peer reviewed so there is generally no need to say this if we say it is published in a scientific journal. The problem here seems to stem from the fact that a Seralini paper was later retracted by the journal and then re-published without any further peer review. Retraction itself is extremely rare as is publishing without further peer review. I am not we should use this rare occurrence to highlight the norm for a particular article. The second point seems to relate to the removal of a study published by Seralini supporting his other claims. Personally I think this can be included as long as responses to it are also included. Most published material gets responses and I am sure Seralini gets his fair share. I addressed the third point above and feel it should be removed as it will distract from the rfc. AIRcorn (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• None of the above, in response to the three questions you pose above. Exactly as Aircorn says above, I removed redundant use of the term "peer reviewed" because virtually all scientific research is published that way, and including it amounts to a fallacious appeal to authority unless it's specifically relevant due to issues with the peer review itself (as for example the extremely unusual review prior to the republication of the retracted 2012 paper). The quesitons you include above are a prime example of the logical fallacy of begging the question. Especially since I actually also toned down what seemed to me to be a very problematic description of the process adopted by ESE, a characterisation of the process which I think went well beyond what Nature says in the cited source and looks to be trying to accuse ESE of deliberately publishing fraudulent research. Feel free to report my edits at the noticeboards if you think they fall short of NPOV, but demands for ArbCom sanctions against named editors against whom you have a grudge do have a habit of backfiring. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You ignore the fact that the paper has been peer-reviewed before, and now you claim "extremely unusual review prior to the republication". Also read what Aircorn wrote again, its not exactly what you want, but you pretend it is. prokaryotes (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Now you're starting to sound like Dana Ullman demanding that no interpretation of any study is valid other than his own. This is a retracted paper, republished without any modification from the original. That's pretty unusual. In fact I can't think of a single other example (though no doubt they exist). And the only previous example I that springs to mind where a paper has been launched by press release in advance of its formal publication is Fleischmann & Pons' cold fusion paper. The source draws attention to the fact that there was no further peer review, and all I am doing is following the source. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Jzg's comment below mine seems to be aligned with how I see these questions. AIRcorn (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• None of the above And (3) looks like pure WP:BATTLE craft. Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you now Wikihounding me? Notice that Alexbrn is claiming i edit war here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayurveda#Recent_edits and immediately looks up my other edits, and posts not in support. prokaryotes (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What!? As you know I was on your Talk page, and so I noticed there mention of an RfC. Being an eager member of the community, when I see an RfC that I can participate in, I do it! (That's the whole point of RfC's ain't it?) Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You intimidate me, you threaten me, you follow my other edits, over basic article improvements - whats next? prokaryotes (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't think you're right. If you have problems with my behaviour take it to WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• None of the above in fact, this RfC demonstrates a certain lack of the HT in IDHT. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• None of the above. It goes to WP:RS, WP:DUE, and common sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• tentative Include I've looked at the four diffs above and I think the removal of the fact that Seralini has published other papers which come to the same, albeit dubious, or similar conclusions that HAVE undergone peer review or at least are in peer reviewed journals is relevant to the article. However, I can't find sources which state this. If PK has such sources Id appreciate them being provided before this RFC closes. SPACKlick (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

All his studies have been published in peer reviewed journals, which is not explicit mentioned, but normally foudn on journal websites under about or similar links. The study from 2011 which i refer above has 91 cites which is also an indicator which merits mentioning, and since we have a section for previous papers, which are related to the 2012 publication. The study from the first DIF above was published in Environmental Sciences Europe, 2011. It also is noteworthy that the retracted paper from 2012 by Food and Chemical Toxicology was retracted because of "inconclusiveness", not for any scientific errors - they found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. Later publications by S were again published in FCT. prokaryotes (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You do not appear to be making any observations here that are new, or worthy of inclusion in our article. So my response to you is "so what?" -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Being published in a peer-reviewed journal is not a magic talisman conferring immunity form criticism. There are many factors that are taken into account when assessing published work, which include things like journal impact factor, reputations of journals for uncritical publication of certain subjects (Chinese journals publishing studies on acupuncture, for example), responses within the literature and more widely, subsequent replication and so on. The Séralini affair specifically refers to a journal article that was retracted - that's a big black mark even if someone else subsequently republishes it. You appear to be trying to use Wikipedia to "fix" a real-world issue, which is that this study is currently considered to be worthless and its republication questionable. I understand that you wish it were not so, but that is what the sources say. It's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting PEer Review is a magic protective cloak, however I think it is important to distinguish quacks who publish dozens of papers in irrelevant journals with no peer review and scientists who publish within the bounds of the scientific method, even if those scientists come to unjustified conclusions. The fact that Seralini is a scientist and not a quack is relevant to that section of the article and should in some sense explicitly be in there, it could be resolved by simply atating where each fo the mentioned articles was published because at the moment you have to go to the references for that. If you believe his preious position within the scientific community isn't relevant then why have a section of previous papers at all? SPACKlick (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is reasonable and fundamentally I agree, but per WP:FRINGE there is a risk in including primary sources of this kind without any context establishing how those sources have been received (especially remembering the homeopathy-sponsored "all feed is evil" study, which is just shockingly poor). It is also more relevant to the article on Séralini himself than in an article on a controversy about a specific paper. Here, I think we very much want to look for WP:RS sources that establish the context and make the link to the original paper, as per your argument above. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Obviously i support the inclusion of mentioning that publications have been peer-reviewed, and related studies should stay in the article. prokaryotes (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment As the lede stands it seems reasonable to me, in that it mentions the refusal to withdraw, the retraction, and the review, all of which need mention. Concerning all that, I suggest no change. However, like Prokaryotes, I think that the hiring of reviewers deserves mention, and at least, does no harm if factual, but rather adds relevant perspective in context. I urge that it be mentioned. JonRichfield (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hired referees

Hi Guy, I do think that the sourced fact that the three reviewers were hired is extraordinary in science. When I review proposals for NIH I get paid, but never for reviewing scientific articles nor do I know of anyone who has. I think because the hiring is sourced and unusual, it should be included. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Related source "ESEU conducted no scientific peer review, he adds, “because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation.” The role of the three reviewers hired by ESEU was to check that there had been no change in the scientific content of the paper, Hollert adds." http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463 Ofc, the fact that it had been conducted earlier is missing from this article, causing now confusion. prokaryotes (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Either it's perfectly normal (and thus not worth mentioning) or it's unusual, in which case we'd need some kind of context telling us how unusual. I have no opinion either way, other than that saying they were hired for the job gives the appearance, to me, of accusing the journal of something. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It is unusual to hire reviewers for a journal article, so I think it would be misleading to leave it out. On the other hand, it is not good to have implied wrong-doing by including it. Perhaps the best way to go is to simply quote in context. Such as:

According to Nature, the editor-in-chief of ESEU, Henner Hollert, stated that "The role of the three reviewers hired by ESEU was to check that there had been no change in the scientific content of the paper."

--I am One of Many (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with that. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

More background

This article From Watchdogs to Lapdogs: How Corporate Media Mislead Us on GMOs, highlights some of the issues discussed in the article. Maybe a good source to improve content. prokaryotes (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Maybe a good source" ! Really? -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope you're joking. Please say this was not seriously being proposed as a source? Guy (Help!) 11:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this trolling ? Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like Truth Out take this recent article (Monsanto Solicited Academics to Bolster Pro-GMO Propaganda Using Taxpayer Dollars) which links to other major media NYT Bloomberg etc., considered reliable - which you can lookup, though not mentioning Seralini Affair directly. prokaryotes (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to propose a specific edit based on specific reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Another Truth Out article ... Did you link the wrong thing or is it really true (!) you're proposing that Truth Out can be a reliable source for us? Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think [3] and [4] may be relevant, since the article is an uncritical report of USRTK's attempts to "do a climategate". USRTK is, of course, a spectacularly unreliable source with a vested interest in anti-GMO activism so any uncritical reporting of their position needs very careful handling. Oh, [5] is also interesting in context. On the other hand we have [6], which has truthiness - I would not trust Monsanto further than I could throw Séralini. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Also [7], [8] (not RS but interesting context), and Keith Kloor's commentary. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not realize that there was so much similarity between climate denial and extreme ant-GMO groups. These articles about academics bolstering propaganda favoring GMOs are extremely misleading.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's one of the really weird things: the two groups are diametrically opposed, philosophically (gaia versus libertarian capitalism, basically) and yet they both use exactly the same tactics and recognise them for what they are when the other side uses them. It's fascinating. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's fascinating, yes. On both sides of the atlantic (bigecobusiness being backed by the European model) science plays only the role of a football. 13:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Include the reason why S paper was retracted

Admin JzG/Guy removed the reason for the retraction of the study which is the scope of this article. A rather on point info, but some think otherwise.

• Include the Reason for the withdraw (per Journal explanation https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology ), currently this info is entirely absent.

• Suggested edit: "In November 2013, Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), retracted Séralini's paper after the authors refused to withdraw it, because of "inconclusiveness", not for any scientific errors they found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data." prokaryotes (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Retraction was imposed because the conclusions described in the article were unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

While the bit after the dash is correct, yes, the use of "not for any scientific errors" is completely unfounded. The choice of rats and small sampling size were what caused the journal to deem the results "inconclusive." They simply ruled out INTENTIONAL deception, not poor science. Parabolist (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed that part. prokaryotes (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

And to be pedantic, they did not rule out, they just said they found no evidence of intentional dodginess. Alexbrn (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Per journal explanation. prokaryotes (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Obviously not Because we don't misrepresent sources for the purpose of advocating a POV. To repeat: retraction was imposed because the conclusions described in the article were unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose That information can be summed up later in the article, the fact that it was withdrawn is the key takeaway for the opening paragraphs. Parabolist (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

So you do agree to include this key info? prokaryotes (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The RfC is on your (incidentally ungrammatical) wording, which is not a really neutral expansion of the reasons for withdrawal. We can include the "no fraud" stuff but need to accompany it with an accurate account of why the article has retraction imposed: the conclusions described in the article were unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• No change needed, as stated by Alexbrn above, so oppose this proposal. The reason for withdrawal was: "Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology." In other words, the conclusions were not supported by the data. I have no objection to including a qualifier along the lines of "while the editors found fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data", but the reason for withdrawal was that the data did not support the conclusions and we don't water that down. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The journal makes it very clear, quote: "A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached", and quote: "Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data." What you and Alexbrn are concluded does not match up. prokaryotes (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: Retraction was imposed because the conclusions described in the article were unreliable. We are not going to say otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sources show there were scientific errors (i.e., inconclusive results and improper conclusions), so I would be inappropriate to remove the struck phrase. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Petition

I removed this text:

In January 2014, an online petition calling for the Séralini study be reinstated was posted by a group of Séralini's supporters from the Bioscience Resource Project.

References

I think the reasons for removal should be obvious: the existence of the petition is cited to the petition itself (which invites suspicion of solicitation, and is the reason why petition sites are blacklisted); the petition is on a website "set up by concerned citizens and scientists in response to the retraction from the Elsevier journal Food and Chemical Toxicology of the study by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues", with no other petitions at all. This is an abject failure of WP:RS. Obviously if anyone wants to restore mention of the petition by reference to substantial coverage in reliable independent sources establishing significance and context. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Good removal. AIRcorn (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes' request at AE

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Request concerning JzG, a request by Prokaryotes for sanctions against me based on the edits under discussion above. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Citation to republication in Lede

The reference <ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14|doi=10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5|year=2014|journal=Environmental Sciences Europe|title=Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize|authors=Gilles-Eric Séralini, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin and Joël Spiroux de Vendômois}}</ref> has been reinserted as as a reference for the text "In June 2014 Séralini republished the article in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, which did not conduct any further peer review. Reviewers checked only that the scientific content of the paper had not changed."

It is my view that this paper does not support the statement. I have no issue with including a link to the paper within this article, since it's clearly relevant, but as I think I have made clear, that is not the place. To include it as a source for the fact of republication is technically WP:OR and in any case is unnecessary as the existing secondary source covers it. To include it where it is, as a source for the review process, is simply wrong, as the paper itself does not cover this.

The options appear to be:

1. Include the reference as a source for In June 2014 Séralini republished the article in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, which did not conduct any further peer review. Reviewers checked only that the scientific content of the paper had not changed.
2. Include the paper within the article, but not as a reference fir this para.
3. Include the paper within the para as a reference for the fact of republication only (i.e. after the journal name).

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinions

2 (first preference); if this is absolutely unacceptable then 3. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

2 or potentially 3. There are secondary sources describing the republication without peer-review, so the only thing this citation really should be used for if anything is to document the republication event. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

3 I see no problem including it to support the statement that it has been republished. It is a WP:Primary source, but this is allowed (don't quite follow the technical OR interpretation). I can't support 2 without more info. Do you mean as an external link or for an as yet unwritten statement? FWIW, if I was new to this article I would expect to see that source attached to the first mention of republication. I agree it can't be used to cover the whole statement. AIRcorn (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen the current layout, with the paper in External Links? I think that makes it a lot easier to find. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw that after I read the below section. I am fine with it in the External Links. AIRcorn (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A tweak

The opening para, The Séralini affair is the name for the controversy about a particular experiment conducted by French molecular biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini. Séralini fed Monsanto's RoundUp-tolerant NK603 genetically modified maize (called corn in North America), as well as glyphosate, to rats and published results which claimed that the corn and the herbicide were toxic to the animals in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, was sourced to the original FCT article. I think that's incorrect as the article doesn't actually support the para, which frames the controversy. The original study was also used to support the subsequent statement of its abstract, so I have moved the citation details there and replaced it as a source for the first para with a 2014 Forbes article that includes a quote that explicitly describes this as the Séralini affair. I'm not religious about this source but I do think the original paper is not really a proper reference for the opening para as it is currently written. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As is stated in the opening sentence, this article is about Séralini's published paper. So, why then make an edit to make it more difficult for readers to find the paper? I thought the purpose of Wikipedia is to *inform* readers. The edit makes no sense at all. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd have thought the natural place for his paper was as an EL at the end of the article? Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

David, I am afraid your comment makes non sense. Did you read my reason for not using the paper as a source for the specific text it was purportedly supporting? I don't have any problem with including the paper (though note that the average reader will be quite incapable of fully understanding it, and I am included in that category). Why is including it as a source for text it does not actually contain somehow more "informative"? Guy (Help!) 18:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Then I assume you are okay if I add a link to the paper itself in the first sentence so that readers can view it? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea about Guy, but I would be unhappy, per WP:ELCITE it should go into External Links. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

David, to support what text? Remember the purpose of <ref> tags is to cite sources. I don't think it counts as a reliable independent secondary source for anything in the opening para, but I could easily be wrong. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You all do not want it to be easy for readers to find the published paper in question? Consider how this article (Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy) handled a controversial publication. The material of the controversy is easy to look at. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That's on point, had to URL link the original 2012 study today. prokaryotes (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

David, you didn't answer the question. What text is is a reference source for? It's remarkably easy to find the study if we call it out at the foot of the article, the idea that it's only "easy" to find it if it's cited as a reference for some text within the first paragraph of the lede seems to me rather odd. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand why you keep asking that. I have made it quite clear in what I wrote above. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's less clear than you think. The study is cite 6 as republished and cited elsewhere, and I am happy for it to be called out and highlighted at the foot or as a footnote per Roxy above. The issue is that the retracted study does not support the text for which it was presented as a reference. Is this a bizarre thing to be bothered by? Guy (Help!) 21:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Consider also these articles:

1. Biscuit Fire publication controversy -- reference to article is easy to spot as footnote #2.
2. Sternberg peer review controversy -- article in question is footnote #2.

Is there a problem with all these articles for making it TOO EASY for readers to look at the controversial material that was published? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't comment for JzG but I'd say it's too hard in those artcles and the relevant papers should be in external links. What you seem to be missing here is that however we link the article and wherever it goes, it shouldn't be used as a reference for things for which it's not an adequate source. SPACKlick (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly a problem with "The paper had been published in the online edition of Science before the letter was written.<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5759/352 D.C. Donato ''et al.'', "Post-wildfire logging hinders regeneration and increases fire risk," ''Science'', January 20, 2006 (subscription required)]</ref>" - the source does not support the text. It might be that you can check the date and check the date of the letter and work it out, but that's not the same as the source actually supporting the statement. And then we have "Meyer's article was a literature review article, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design.<ref name="disco paper date">[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 Intelligent design: The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories]; [[Center for Science and Culture]]</ref>". So yes, I do have a problem with it. Actually I don't think this is "easy" for people to find because it is represented as a source about something else entirely. Much better to have in the references section a specific link to the originals, above the rest of the references, or include it in external links or further reading. Then it's easy to find, rather than linked in a place where the text indicates you'd expect to find something else entirely.

I doubt this is deliberate, by the way - articles tend to be edited back and forth, especially contentious ones like this, and references can easily be separated from the text they are supposed to support. That's why i think it's best to fix such weirdness when you find it. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you suddenly add the paper to EL, but i approve of it, it is actually even better than what i attempted earlier. prokaryotes (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

SPACKlick gets the credit for spotting that's where it should be. I just made the edit. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Previous Séralini papers

I dont think that section fits in the affair - it is better to be moved to the article about the person. Polentarion Talk 23:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree to a certain extent. This should focus mainly on the 2012 paper and the aftermath. However, some background is necessary and that will include summarising his previous work. We don't need a blow-by-blow account of his previous papers under its own heading though and I would support pruning and melding this section into the background. The rest may fir in his own article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think a brief section describing previous papers by reference to independent coverage of them would make sense as context, but listing them or citing them all seems like resume padding and I agree any more comprehensaive list belongs at the article on Séralini himself, not here. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I have already moved the content to the Seralini article, the reduction of the section here has been deemed too bold and was reverted. But I asssume we dont loose the content, we increase readability if we boil it down to the essentials here. Polentarion Talk 13:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD seems to have been fulfilled. People would like a summary para, for context, I'm sure we can rely on you and Prokaryotes to propose something but for now the removal of the resume seems to me to be adequately explained and I have no problem with it. I can't speak for anyone else of course. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I was being deemed an industry shill and serial vandal recently, see Peak Oil, so I am more cautious about bold edits now. But it seems that different industries want to have their say. Why not ask @Prokaryotes: to provide it? Polentarion Talk 14:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved a part to the lawsuits section, maybe the section can be trimmed but basically it all seems to be related. prokaryotes (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

And added a section [9]. Which is OK, but it might have been better to discuss it first given the history. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Still need to reduce content. Polentarion Talk 18:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Follow up studies

Prokaryotes added the following section:

In 2014 institutions from Russia, the United States and Europe announced a two to three years study with a budget of $25 million, with the aim to settle the debate surrounding GM Corn and applied herbicides. The study will include 6,000 rats and a GMO corn diet, to evaluate independently possible health impacts.

References

So I checked the source. There are a couple of issues.

1. The source appears to be primarily based on a material from a press release, so not independent.
2. The author, Carey Gillam, has a long-standing anti-GMO agenda ([10])
3. The "institutions" conducting the studies are portrayed as an international science organisations, but actually the only body identified on the website is the so-called "National Association for Genetic Safety", an anti-GMO organisation in Russia.
4. The anti-GMO provenance is not mentioned in the Reuters piece, which is uses various common rhetorical devices straight out of the tobacco industry playbook to exaggerate doubt and cast aspersions on the mainstream findings, or in the edit.
5. This page makes it pretty clear that the study is predicated on the idea that GMOs are toxic.

I do not think this is an honest piece of independent scientific inquiry, and portraying it as such is dangerous and wrong. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Narrative flow, the timeline

with this edit the description of the timline of the affair was disrupted, and is now incomplete, with the para moved out of the mainsection. I believe it should have been discussed first. As that series of edits broke ArbCom restrictions in the same way that Guy broke them yesterday, perhaps we could work it out here, rather than there! -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A study to settle the debate. With love from Russia and a pseudoacademy. Its a nice example of Scientism, but not any value added. I ask to revert the edit and destill the current text to a chronological list or even shorter. Polentarion Talk 19:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and the sections on PLOS One study and lawsuits should probably both be folded into the main timeline of events, since both are very short and amount to little more than resting places for factoids. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference for title

David Tornheim removed a reference to Forbes supporting the name "Séralini affair" [11]. I think that reference should go back in. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The removing edit had an edit summary that referred to possible POV in the source. I looked at the source, and I'm not seeing such a problem, which might suggest that the source should be restored. I'd like to hear what the objections to the source are. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed the reference in the lede to Jon Entine's article here, which was recently added here without first obtaining consensus for the change. This was a significant change to material that had been stable for months if not longer. Entine is a Pro-GMO advocate. Even Jytdog acknowledged this here, saying, "nor would I cite other sources by advocates with clear financial ties like Jon Entine". A more WP:NPOV article such as this one in Nature might be more appropriate. Additionally, the lede does not reflect what is in the article. In fact, the first sentence has errors, which I have previously identified and will identify again. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you consider replacing the source with one you prefer? I'm fine with that, but the source you propose does not include the term Séralini affair, which was what this source supported. WP:BRD applies: it's not necessary to discuss every nuance of every edit in advance, but note that I already raised the substitution of the reference above and you'rte the first to object. Guy (Help!) 00:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ledes don't need sources, but I'm not seeing anything wrong with the source either. It seems fine under NPOV in the context of dealing with a WP:FRINGE subject. WP:PARITY especially applies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the fringe subject here? And Entine is a pro industry advocate and should not be the source of negative BLP info. Minor4th 02:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice that there are similar issues now at Gilles-Éric Séralini, lots of content changes in last 48 hrs. References to blogs, opinion pieces, references not working at all, claims like he is an activist, or his lab is a think tank, but the regulars seem to be just fine with that. prokaryotes (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Minor4th Seriously? Séralini's anti-GMO views are fringe. They have only a tiny minority of support among the relevant professional community, and are themselves supported primarily by non-specialists with an ideological bias against biotechnology. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

JzG, if you have reliable source in regards to what you write above then this should go into the article, the problem is that currently references which make these claims come from non experts, or from individuals hired by Monsanto. For instance ref 3 from the lede at Gilles-Éric Séralini is based on a German interview, which starts with explaining that the person interviewed is not an expert, but he done some statistical stuff. That GMOs are controversial is echoed in the mainstream media and many authorities indirectly support Seralini when they start labeling Glyphosate as a carcinogenic. Hence, his views are not that fringe as you try to make it sound like.prokaryotes (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO there's no need to add further sources to strengthen our presentation of these facts, but I appreciate your invitation to do so. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Guy, could you actually articulate which of Seralini's views are fringe? Be specific if you can. Minor4th 13:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Scientifically, anti-GMO is fringe. Séralini is anti-GMO. End of. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Guy, "anti-GMO" is not a scientific description and it tells me nothing about which of his specific views are fringe. I don't think he can be called "fringe", especially not in a blanket statement used like that. Decide which of his views you take issue with - or maybe KOA could since he's trying to base editorial decisions on FRINGE and PARITY. Once again, Entine is not a reliable source for negative BLP info in this article. Minor4th 15:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, Séralini's committed support for the reliability of his own research conclusions here is very seriously at odds with mainstream science, and so is covered by WP:PSCI (and so WP:FRINGE). Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That may have been true a year ago, but it's no longer true. There is plenty of recent research that is in line with Seralini's studies. Have you looked outside the US lately? IARC and ESNA both found that glyphosate is not safe and at a minimum needs to be regulated to a maximum exposure dose. That's fairly mainstream these days. Minor4th 16:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a different matter. No respectable source thinks Séralini's conclusions (his ones drawn from his data) are reliable. His maintenance to the contrary is, in WP terms, fringe. (And BTW, I spend my life looking outside the US because I don't live there). Alexbrn (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, exactly which conclusions are you talking about? That glyphosate formulations have long term toxicity and should be regulated? Or what? Minor4th 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The conclusions of the journal article which is (meant to be) the principal subject of this article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate stays to be the most used herbicde world wide, in the range of a 800.000 tons annually. Its not without dangers, but sorry, thats the case as well for benzene and water. Mainstream? Polentarion Talk 16:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Seralini is an important political and media figure, his views are far from being fringe, they are backing the European leadership political mainstream. Science is - as Brian Wynne and others have stated - completely unimportant and has just the role of a football. Does anybody care about his actutal results? Raising doubt is much more important. Polentarion Talk 15:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Important? Only in as much as the amount of heat he has managed to generate for a remarkably small and tightly focused scientific output - a large proportion of the not-so-many hits on PubMed are letters by him defending the retracted paper and most of the rest, at least in recent years, seem to be attempts to argue exactly the same case. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The most important thing - involving billions of Euros - is his contribution to the factual ban of GMO imports to the EU. As said, "science" is completely irrelevant. This is about real business. Polentarion Talk 16:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Here's an alternate reference for the title Smelling a rat published in the Economist. This is better than the source that was removed. Sorry I got off topic in this thread. Minor4th 01:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree the author of the Economist article may not have the same reputation as Jon Entine. However, the Nature article I proposed is better in that it more correctly reports Seralini's study's findings. Neither the Forbes nor Economist articles report the findings correctly, probably because they are mainstream magazines and do not specialize in scientific matters like Nature does. (See: Talk:Séralini_affair#Article_incorrectly_states_conclusions_of_the_Study._Correction_is_needed.) --02:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of Blog as RS

I reverted this edit. A science blog is being used for WP:RS. I do not believe it is WP:RS.

--David Tornheim (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

As with all things related to sourcing here, it depends on how the source is used. ScienceBlogs is generally considered a RS here because they are a chosen group of subject experts, and such experts don't normally need editorial oversight or control because they speak from their own authority. Granted it wasn't being used for a science matter (Myers is a biology expert), but its use as a source for the term "science by press conference" (Seralini is used as an example in that article) seems innocent enough, and that is exactly what Seralini did, but in a much more elaborate and calculated way than did Andrew Wakefield. Now if we can find a better source, I would have no problem with substituting it, but I don't think there is any question that the term is apt here, and I think the source is good enough for that use. Therefore I suggest restoring it, and we could even attribute it as the opinion of PZ Myers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of blogs, our suspicion of blogs originated in a time when blogs were nothing but everymans (and womans) public personal diary, which would obviously not be a RS. Then the blog format and platform became more popular and we saw businesses and politicians use it for their official websites. We also saw journalists and subject experts use it for their websites.

Therefore our attitude towards use of blogs has become more nuanced, although a certain unjustified reticence still lingers as a form of "allergic reaction" towards the word. So, just because the word "blog" is used, don't reject it on that basis alone. Examine how it's used. It just might happen to be an excellent source that is fully as reliable as The New York Times (which isn't hard to beat sometimes). -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That blog and the content are not reliable sources for any content of substance and shouldn't be used to source negative BLP info or science related content. Minor4th 13:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The problem with self-published blogs compared to even articles published in the mainstream media is the lack of fact checking, the lack of any need for balance and, of course, with regard to science, the lack of peer review found in scientific journals--even if the self-published work is from an "expert". Wikipedia frowns heavily on self-published sources for WP:RS for good reason (See: WP:USERGENERATED). I am not sure why you feel you need a source for the use of the term "science press conference". I do not think anyone would challenge that description: It almost seems like a common sense interpretation of what I have seen described in the other articles, so I see no need for a source. Why do you feel it needs a reference? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blogs are a reliable source for the opinion of the person who writes the blog. They can be used in articles if attributed to that person. The question is rather should we include that persons opinion in the article. PZ Myers is a well known biological scientist so seems qualified enough. He is following the mainstream view so I don't see any WP:Undue issues. AIRcorn (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Article incorrectly states conclusions of the Study. Correction is needed.

I am reasserting what I wrote here, that the paper does not say that the RoundUp Ready corn and/or the Round-Up are "toxic" which is stated in sentence #2. (It is often asserted here on Wiki that nearly all substances natural or man-made are "toxic"--if you take enough, including water.) Seralini's study instead emphasized the need for longer studies. The conclusion stated in the Abstract is:

Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.

Does the fact that the mainstream media (and possibly other sources) have misrepresented the paper's conclusions justify doing the same here? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your point is valid. We need a source, so I have tagged the use of the word "toxic" in the lead. Let's see if someone can provide it soon. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To use the editor-in-chief's words, the paper made "the claim that there is a definitive link between GMO and cancer". We should be aligned with that. Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The paper did not make such a claim or conclusion, irrespective of what the former editor-in-chief said. Sources are easy to findMinor4th 13:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the recent changes made by Alexbrn because they were factually inaccurate and not supported b the sources. Seralini's study was a toxicology study, not a cancer study. He made no conclusions about "cancer." Please do not re-add that content without extensive discussion and consensus. Just because sources misrepresent the study does not mean we should do so in Wikipedia's voice. If we're going to mention a cancer link to Seralini, then we need to expand upon Seralini's response and the whole body of literature that explains that it was not a cancer study and it wasn't appropriate to use cancer protocols and data designs. Minor4th 13:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done to revert the whole thing, including grammar fixes etc. even if you disagree with one aspect. That doesn't really help the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(Add) in any case I think we can rely on the Editor-in-chief of the journal to understand what he published rather than rely on the OR of a random amateur Wikipedia editor. And indeed on consulting the Séralini paper one finds the paper refers to itself as "... a chronic toxicity study in which there is a serious suspicion of carcinogenicity. Such indications had not been previously reported for GM foods. ... Surprisingly, there was also a clear trend in increased tumor incidence, especially mammary tumors in female animals, in a number of the treatment groups. " [my bold]. In view of this I find the reversion rather extraordinary, and suggest we go back to WP:Verifiable text which fixes the problem identified in this section. Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I propose that this be handled by quoting from the original. Lfstevens (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Apart from the fact it is technical language unsuitable for lay readers, it is also wrong & WP:FRINGE. We should be using expert WP:SECONDARY sources, not picking stuff out of the primary and turning Wikipedia into an inexpert secondary itself. Alexbrn (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we use the more narrow language to describe what the paper itself said (in other words, not attribute "toxicity" to it), but then add something along the lines of "in a way that implied a likelihood of carcinogenicity", or words somewhat like that, attributing the latter to the Editor-in-chief. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. From pieces like this it seems it was the "increased tumours" claim which caused the fireworks in the scientific community. This nature.com source source is good; to quote it: "Séralini's team had found that rats fed for two years with a glyphosate-resistant type of maize (corn) made by Monsanto developed many more tumours and died earlier than did control animals. It also found that the rats developed tumours when Roundup was added to their drinking water." Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The statement about the "full commercial formulation" would make any commercial use impossible and is not the goal of any serious toxicology or pharmaceutical study. Evidence based is about the agent, not about the formulation. I doubt the useability of the various lengthy verbal quotes suggested here. What we need is a description of the study and its purported results based on secondary sources - he used a way too low number of rats which live not much longer than two years and are prone to cancer anyway, and he left out the basic variables (feed rates, consumption, wheight gain) and he published useless findings in coincidence to documentary books and films to bring a message accross.Polentarion Talk 19:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Please consider slowing down and taking time to understand the context around the study and the controversy. This was not a cancer study; cancer is not mentioned in the study at all. It was a long term tox study that concluded that exposure to glyphosate formulations led to kidney and liver problems and incidentally the rats developed more tumors than the controls and Seralini suggests this as an area for further study without drawing any conclusions about cancer or carcenogenicity. Yes, the former editor in chief made a comment about the study linking glyphosate to cancer - but that statement is WRONG. We should not keep repeating that wrong statement. There was no "implied likelihood of carcinogenicity" - there was an observation about tumors developing and a call for proper research. Minor4th 20:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Our job is not to attempt to "understand" the study, it is to relay what is reported in reliable independent secondary expert sources: that is the essence of NPOV. You are arguing for your own interpretation of what the paper said, which is the essence of original research (and from the article text, and from how the paper is reported elsewhere, e.g. in nature.com news above, it's obvious that your interpretation is adrift of the experts). Let's use expert published commentary and edit according to the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources and discussion re: study

• Here is a 2015 review article on the current knowledge of Roundup/GMO corn health and safety: [12]] It references the 2012 Seralini study this way: Séralini et al. [2, 3] presented evi- dence from longer term toxicity studies that confirmed earlier findings. This work also reported that Roundup herbicide formulation (tested in three different doses) causes liver and kidney toxicity at levels well below the regulatory threshold set for glyphosate, alone. This was the first study to investigate effects of a Roundup for- mulation. All earlier studies investigated glyphosate, the herbicidal ingredient of Roundup, in isolation. The genetically modified maize NK603, Roundup and the two in combination were also reported to increase mortality and tumor incidence. The study was designed as a toxi- cological study, not as a carcinogenesis study. Therefore, the tumor incidence and mortality results were reported, according to OECD guidelines for chronic toxicity studies [6], as secondary observations requiring follow- up using a study design intended to systematically assess carcinogenesis.

• The actual Seralini study concludes [13]In conclusion, it was previously known that glyphosate con- sumption in water above authorized limits may provoke hepatic and kidney failures (EPA). The results of the study presented here clearly demonstrate that lower levels of complete agricultural gly- phosate herbicide formulations, at concentrations well below offi- cially set safety limits, induce severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic and kidney disturbances. Similarly, disruption of biosynthetic pathways that may result from overexpression of the EPSPS transgene in the GM NK603 maize can give rise to com- parable pathologies that may be linked to abnormal or unbalanced phenolic acids metabolites, or related compounds. Other muta- genic and metabolic effects of the edible GMO cannot be excluded. This will be the subject of future studies, including transgene and glyphosate presence in rat tissues. Reproductive and multigenera- tional studies will also provide novel insights into these problems. This study represents the first detailed documentation of long- term deleterious effects arising from the consumption of a GM R- tolerant maize and of R, the most used herbicide worldwide.Minor4th 20:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

And what has this to do with the Séralini affair? This is an article about the publication and retraction of a journal article that was found, in itself, to make unreliable claims about GMO and cancer. Material on "the current knowledge" of the field is not relevant to what happened back then. Alexbrn (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

ec.. Is there a point being made here? It isn't clear. Roxy the dog™ woof 21:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thought it would be obvious without me having to explain. Above you have 2015 peer-reviewed secondary source/review article that tells us exactly what the conclusions of the 2012 Seralini study were. That's what Alexbrn was asking for in the section above. The second cite is the conclusion from the study itself. These are better sources for what the Seralini study was and wasn't, compared to an erroneous statement from the former editor of FCT that the Seralini study found a "definitive link between glyphosate and cancer." Do you guys really know what this study and all the controversy is about? Minor4th 21:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't use fringe/junk journals for extraordinary claims, though even this says "tumor incidence and mortality results were reported". EUSU is a no-impact-factor journal. Nature.com and FCT are at the other end of the quality scale. Alexbrn (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, tumor incidence and mortality were reported, but only as a collateral observation and without drawing any conclusions about it other than to suggest further research designed specifically for carcinogen studies. Alex, I'm just trying to look for sources that actually describe the study and its findings accurately. I do not see the Farber article as either pro or anti GMO or pro or anti Seralini - it was just the only review article I could find that actually described the Seralini study and conclusions. Is there any reason to disagree with that article when you compare it to the actually conclusion in the article? I certainly don't mind if you can find a better source, but that is what we have for right now. Minor4th 22:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: - I also have no problem using the Nature article you cited above that says: Séralini's team had found teshat rats fed for two years with a glyphosate-resistant type of maize (corn) made by Monsanto developed many more tumours and died earlier than did control animals. It also found that the rats developed tumours when Roundup was added to their drinking water. if you prefer that. I think that also accurately describes the study. Minor4th 23:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• I boldly edited the lede according to this discussion, and added Alexbrn's Nature cite and the 2015 Farber cite in the first paragraph. It now reads:

The Séralini affair is the name for the controversy about the publication of a particular feeding study conducted by French molecular biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini and others. Séralini's team conducted a 2-year toxicity study in which rats were fed Monsanto's RoundUp (Monsanto's commercially-formulated glyphosate) and RoundUp-tolerant NK603 genetically modified corn. The study, published in 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology, observed that the rats fed RoundUp and NK603 corn developed many more tumours and other severe diseases and died earlier than did control animals. It also found that the rats developed tumours when Roundup was added to their drinking water. The study concluded that long-term feeding trials should be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of genetically modified foods and commercially formulated pesticides. [1][2]

I am open to further discussion or reversion if anyone takes issue with this edit. Minor4th 23:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but we have no base for that assumption - the study has been deemed a non-event in science. Polentarion Talk 02:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Nature news piece is good, but it is subtitled "food-safety bodies slam feeding study that claims increased cancer incidence in rats" and does tell us "he was not expecting to find any--no previous tests on GM foods had suggested a cancer risk. Yet Seralini has promoted the cancer results as the study's major finding". The point is that what appears incidental from a plain reading of the text, was promoted as the key claim because of the way the paper was launched. Hence the sensitivity to the claim from the editor and in the general reception of the text which sees "cancer incidence" as the key point at issue. We need to make that plain too. Basically, the word "cancer" needs to be in the opening para for NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's almost as if the journalists were spoon-fed the conclusions via a massive press launch or something. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. And in the world out there the push back from the activists now seems to be to say that "Seralini never said cancer, it's all a *smear* I tell yah". We must be careful not to have Wikipedia buy into that nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think those aspects of the controversy are covered in the following paragraph of the lede - the big press release and non-disclosure, etc. I only worked with the first paragraph. My concern was about Wikipedia's voice misstating the study's conclusions. Minor4th 13:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is interested in what are technically the study's "conclusions". All of RS (and Séralini himself) focused on the claim made in the paper linking GMO with cancer. That is the essence of the "affair". We need to be aligned with RS. At the moment we're aligned with Minor4th's OR. Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

As a start, I have changed "observed" to "claimed", since the one thing that is unambiguously demonstrated is that the power of the study was insufficient to observe these things, and the claims were found to be unsupportable. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

We should go much further. The first paragraph of the lead is cirrently reporting the "conclusions" of a withdrawn retracted study. Quite unbelievable. It goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for, (and WP:UNDUE) to report these non-conclusions in the lead as if they had any weight at all. I am about to revert to the version before Minor 4th's recent pov edit. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I am comfortable with that, obviously. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after careful consideration I think my text was alright. Alexbrn (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I was actually thinking this version was the one, though I'd change "its conclusions were" to "this claim was" (in para 1) to satisfy the valid element of M4's complaint. Alexbrn (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, Done, but give me a few moments to make sure that you are correct;) -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine to focus the article on the criticisms and the controversy the study drew, but that doesn't mean that we publish erroneous information about a study. If you want to give more focus to the initial reaction from industry and the science community, then make that the first paragraph - but don't include wrong information just because "no one cares about the actual conclusions." That's actually another facet of this "affair" that needs to be expended, however - the question of industry influence over the peer review process etc. I'm motivated to continue collaboration on this article. And let's try to keep the insults and personalization out of it please. Minor4th 15:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What is "erroneous"? We're getting a build-up of opinion and assertion on this Talk page not backed by sources (or even mention of sources). To be constructive it would be helpful if the conversation was grounded in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What "wrong information"? -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

what's "wrong" and "erroneous" is that the study claimed a link between GMO and cancer - errors that you just reverted back in the article. Due to those errors, I had requested that discussion and consensus be formed before restoring Alex' version. Alex, I'm requesting that you self revert your last edit, based on the DS and 1RR restrictions on this article. And let's continue the discussion since we apparently haven't reached consensus yet. Minor4th 16:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If you review the discussion above you'll see we have multiple strong RS telling us the study claimed a strong link between GMOs and cancer. We follow that strong RS. I am open to continued discussion of course - but it must be based on RS, not personal opinion. Alexbrn (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(Add) Talking of 1RR, you've just reverted again (and cried BLP). I have filed a report at AE. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC); amended 17:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex, please read this section above and you will find the reliable sources that explain the conclusions of Seralini's study. Please do not continue reverting back in false conclusions of the study and attributing them to the study itself. That is big time BLP violation, making a claim in WP voice that a scientist concluded "a strong link to cancer" when no such conclusion was made. youve got multiple editors trying to explain this to you (me, Tryptofish, Trondheim and polentate.). This is not about POV - It's about not misrepresenting scientific studies. Minor4th 16:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I see only one editor disagreeing and reverting, and that is you. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

^I disagree with the claim of "a strong link to cancer". The quote from the study you provided above said "a strong suspicion of cancer" that required further study. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm trying to examine the language of the sources being discussed here, and I do think that they point towards treating cancer as being of lead-worthy importance. Here are some details that I see. There is a quote from Seralini's own study, that says: "This will be the subject of future studies, including transgene and glyphosate presence in rat tissues." We should not misunderstand that as meaning that Seralini was saying that, in his opinion at the time, conclusions about carcinogenicity could not be made from the present study. Rather, he is just saying (in fairly typical scientific journal-speak) that he is planning to do more studies (kind of a signal to other investigators that they won't be able to "scoop" him). When he talks about "overexpression of the EPSPS transgene" and "other mutagenic... effects", he is talking about changes in genetic material, that are widely understood by biochemical scientists as being tantamount to carcinogenicity. So the reporting of tumors and resulting mortality is very much a report, in scientific journal terms, of probable carcinogenicity. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You will need some RS to back up all these claims. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not the case, although it's an understandable source of confusion. What you are concerned about comes down to whether what I said was WP:OR. If editors were discussing, on an article talk page, a source written in a language other than English, and an editor who reads that language fluently were to explain what the source says, that would not be original research. It would just be help in properly understanding the source. What I am doing here is analogous to that. I'm explaining what the source says. That's part of what editors do. There is nothing controversial about noting that "mutagenic effects" are equivalent to carcinogenesis. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

We're now getting a repetition of the revert to remove "cancer" from the opening and re-refocus on Séralini's (technical) conclusion, rather than his grand claim. This is like a cameraman focusing on the goalposts at one end of the pitch while a goal is being scored on the other side, quite out-of-step with RS and so not neutral. I think the consensus is reasonably plain. Furthermore we should not attribute the finding of scientific flaws in the study to just one guy, as this incorrectly implies it is a mere opinion, rather than the settled fact it is - see WP:ASSERT ... this is also at variance with our requirement for NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add the word cancer to the lede. I object as well. Please stop trying to edit war in the word cancer and work to find consensus. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Objections count for nothing if they are not rooted in the WP:PAGs. We have multiple strong RS's telling us that the paper claimed a strong link between GMOs/Roundup and cancer (yes, that specific word). We need to follow such WP:RS to be neutral. At least 3 editors today have expressed a preference for including mention of cancer (and two, I being one of them, have made an edit to do so). On the other hand I'm hearing a couple of objections but seeing no good sources to support those objections. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It must be me who Alex refers to as having "made an edit to do so", for the record, so yes, I did. Lets all raise an xmas toast to neutrality. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC).

It is bizarre to state that we cannot include the single most widely reported facet of this study because a small number of stonewalling editors claim there is no consensus for it. The PR photos have Séralini holding up a rat with cancer, it's not us who's making the link. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Could we perhaps solve this dispute by changing the second sentence of the lead:

"The article, which appeared in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), reported an increase in tumors among rats fed genetically modified corn and RoundUp."

to:

"The article, which appeared in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), reported toxic effects in rats fed genetically modified corn and RoundUp, and led to widespread media reports of possible carcinogenic effects."

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

GMO Claims in the lede

We got now the following claime in the first sentence claimed there was a strong link between genetically modified organisms and cancer. I might care less about the cancer issue, but I see a problem with the GMO claim. It was about GMO maize but as well about Roundup, right? Evaluation? Polentarion Talk 16:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good catch. My fault & now fixed. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)