Talk:Genetically modified crops

Sentence regarding case-by-case testing in different countries

These two edits replaced sourced material:

Yet, some countries such as United States, Canada, Lebanon and Egypt do not have any special regulations for testing GM food on a case-by-case basis.

with this unsourced statement:

The safety of individual crops is assessed on a case-by-case basis...

This later statement is contradicted by RS about GMO regulations. In the edit which removed the original source statement, Kingofaces43 wrote "Not in source." Apparently, the editor did not read the source, it is indeed in the source and is brought up repeatedly in RS, especially RS that distinguishes US from EU regulations Numerous other law review articles say the same thing about the U.S., that there is no special testing for GM food, because of the substantial equivalence and Generally recognized as safe doctrines. . There was no justification for deleting the well sourced material and replacing it with unsourced material that is contradicted by the RS; therefore, I have restored the sourced material.

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

These tendentious tactics, especially the edit warring, needs to stop. Other editors mistaking a moved expanded sentence as deleted hasn't helped this discussion either. The source on the "special regulation" language says nothing of the sort. It says there isn't specialized legislation that mentions GMOs by name, but that's a non-issue because regulatory agencies deal with those nuances of developing new regulation. It goes quite in depth into the different ways GMOs are regulated in the US such as APHIS, FDA, etc. showing the language you are trying to revert back in is purely OR. You're basically trying to claim that because substantial equivalence is practiced, crops aren't evaluated on a case-by-case. That's a personal interpretation and an extremely incorrect one at that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I did nothing tendentious. I simply wrote what is in the RS. APHIS is not part of the FDA. The FDA regulates American food for safety, not APHIS. All of the resources say the same thing: that GMO's are Generally recognized as safe by the FDA, and if a GMO product can be shown to "substantially equivalent" to the conventional crop, no special toxicity and animal feeding studies are required, unlike for food additives (and "novel" food), where those studies are required (explained on page 746 of Marden). The RS also say that part of the process of approval in the U.S. is voluntary despite requests from the AMA that it be made mandatory (verifying this is as simple as looking at the FDA website under the section titled "Consultation" here). To suggest that GMO products are tested on case-by-case basis with toxicity and animal feeding studies as is required in Europe is misleading. If any edit is tendentious, it is putting such a misleading statement in the article. If you want to take this to a notice board, please do. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That's actually the part that demonstrates your novel synthesis, so I highly suggest self-reverting as you edit warred the content back in. To be considered substantially equivalent, testing is still needed to establish that (e.g., biochemical composition, etc.) on a case-by-case basis. The source also demonstrates that there are multiple regulatory agencies involved in the process. The source does say there isn't legislation specific to GMOs, but that's the case for many topics out there. Regulatory agencies are given some autonomy to decide what needs to be dealt with in their domain, so even mentioning specialized legislation in the article is a misnomer. As of right now, the source directly contradicts the statement you tried to make it say. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the RS I provided? You claim the source contradicts the language in the article. Please provide a sentence or page and the language you claim contradicts the sentence. So far Aircorn, Tryptofish have seen the language, and I assume other editors who monitor the articles. Tryptofish even slightly revised it in one of the articles. The language is a summary of material in the article referenced--we could expand it to summarize what goes on in other countries too and how it varies from country to country. So far, you are the only editor who objects to it. I do agree that to prove substantial equivalence one must do what is required for ALL food, which is what the FDA says here, not just GMO, so it is not specialized for GMO, which is consistent with what is said in the various RS. And again case-by-case is referring to the toxicology and animal feeding studies required by the EU (not test required of ALL food to prove substantial equivalence)--we could add the lack of "toxicological and animal feeding studies" to the sentence if that makes it clearer and satisfies your objection. And again the EPA and USDA do not regulate food safety; the FDA does. The language in the sentence specifically says "food" not crops and is directly relevant to the preceding sentence about FOOD safety, not the topics that are covered by the other agencies. So I do not see evidence of a problem with the sentence, or any suggestions to improve it if you really feel it has a problem. Can you please propose a better sentence that reflects what is in the RS I provided if you think there is a problem? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry David, but the WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate the source says this, not me. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:11, January 31, 2016‎ (UTC)

Unless it's untrue that the United States, Canada, Lebanon, and Egypt do not require it (that's a double negative, so in other words, unless it's true that they do require it), I'm OK with that sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It is explicitly untrue:

"In the United States, in fact, each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and testing in order to receive regulatory approval, AAAS noted. It must be shown to be the same as the parent crop from which it was derived and if a new protein trait has been added, the protein must be shown to be neither toxic nor allergenic. "As a result and contrary to popular misconceptions," AAAS reported, "GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever.”[2]

and

"Whereas each new genetically engineered crop variety is assessed on a case-by-case basis by three governmental agencies, conventional crops are not regulated by these agencies. Still, to date, compounds with harmful effects on humans or animals have been documented only in foods developed through conventional breeding approaches."[3] (my bolding)

We're dealing with language that is not in the cited source as far as I can find as it appears to be an original synthesis of what the reader thinks it means barring some further clarification that the source does say this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The AAAS statement from a SCIENTIFIC and technology advocacy organization as part of a PR campaign against labeling is hardly RS on regulations. Regulations are legal, not scientific, so the RS from legal sources about the regulatory system trumps statements by scientific organization with an agenda. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking to the subject, there is no mandatory GM food testing in the US, in fact, there is no specific GMO regulation in the US. This is amply documented. For example (my emphasis in both):

The FDA regulates GM foods as part of the “coordinated framework” of federal agencies that also includes the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”).16 This framework, which has been the subject of critical analysis and calls for redesign,17 is available online18 and contains a searchable database that covers “genetically engineered crop plants intended for food or feed that have completed all recommended or required reviews.”19 The FDA policy (unchanged since 1992)20 places responsibility on the producer or manufacturer to assure the safety of the food, explicitly relying on the producer/manufacturer to do so: “Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met.”21 So it is the company, not any independent scientific review, providing the research that is relied on to assert safety. FDA guidance to industry issued in 1997 covered voluntary “consultation procedures,” but still relied on the developer of the product to provide safety data.22 There is currently no regulatory scheme requiring GM food to be tested to see whether it is safe for humans to eat.23 American Bar Association health law article (2013)

...and...

The United States does not have any federal legislation that is specific to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Rather, GMOs are regulated pursuant to health, safety, and environmental legislation governing conventional products.

Under the FFDCA, substances added to food can be classified either as “food additives,” which require approval from the FDA that they are safe before they can be marketed,[45] and substances added to food classified as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS), as to which preapproval is not needed.[46] In a 1992 policy statement, the FDA reaffirmed that in most cases it would treat foods derived from GMOs like those derived from conventionally bred plants, and that most foods derived from GM plants would be presumptively GRAS. Library of Congress report on GMO restriction in the US (2014)

Our GM food/crop articles should make clear the rather unique US regulatory situation: Compared to other countries, regulation of GMOs in the US is relatively favorable to their development.Library of Congress report --Tsavage (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

^Agree. I have added that kind of information to some articles, and more needs to be done. Our articles do a poor job of explaining the very large differences in how GMO's are regulated from country to country, and some articles try to make it sound like the regulations are more or less the same everywhere, which is quite misleading. That is precisely what the AAAS statement does, which is why we should not use the AAAS statement as RS--it is not reliable. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In the well-written AAAS statement, In the United States, in fact, each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and testing in order to receive regulatory approval I believe refers to the fact that the biotech companies are expected to test each product for safety, but there is no requirement that they do anything beyond that, including publish the test results, if the company is satisfied of safety. So it's accurate that way, but doesn't refer to what some might think it does, that there is mandatory independent testing. I believe companies have submitted to the voluntary consultation process for all approved products, so essentially, GM foods are safety tested by the companies themselves, with results reviewed by the FDA. --Tsavage (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The statement you quoted is IMHO deliberately misleading to make it sound like there is more testing than there actually is, as part of their agenda to oppose labeling in California. Hence, we should not rely on that statement as RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't yet have an opinion on this, but I tagged the sentence pending further discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you did. So do you mind if I tag the sentence regarding the "scientific agreement" (which others like you say should read "scientific consensus") in the same way since clearly there is a dispute about it? --David Tornheim (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That would be pointy at this time per WP:TAGGING. People are already aware of the of the ongoing discussion on the consensus statement, but the current version has been the stable version for awhile. Do realize the text you edit-warred in ignoring WP:BRD on the other hand is there at this time because of the current tag compromise.

Focusing on the content at hand, it's pretty apparent the content doesn't quite match up with the sources you're providing and is further disputed by others. To say there are no "special" regulations in the U.S. is just false. Each regulatory agency has their specific set of regulations they've developed for GMOs, and they get approved on an individual basis. Such a statement in the lede makes it appear like there is no regulation in this area and becomes undue weight due to cherrypicking specific statements and synthesizing new meaning. Not to mention that we have no such content in the lede. At the end of the day, USDA, FDA, and EPA each have specific regulatory frameworks for dealing with GMOs. Even the FDA's substantial equivalence call is a layered case-by-case evaluation where information that does not fulfill substantial equivalence triggers further testing. Even the EPA requires food-safety analysis for allergenicity, etc.[4]. When it often costs over $100 million to get through the regulatory phase in the U.S., people are going to have a tough time claiming there aren't special regulations. It's looking like it's time to remove the content and more accurately reflect the sources in other areas instead of just inserting it into the lede. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: The simple, factual summary appears to be, in the US, there is no government regulation specific to GMOs, GM food is treated in the same way as conventional food, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) of 1938. Unless there is an indication that any new food may be unsafe, it is generally recognized as safe (GRAS, an FDA term), and does not require preapproval. Determining whether a food may be unsafe and therefore require special testing is the responsibility of industry. There is a voluntary consultation process, wherein industry can submit their own testing to indicate safety. For approved GM products to date, industry has submitted to voluntary consultation.

In more detail, what is regulated for food safety is not the entire organism, it is the introduced DNA material and resulting proteins, which are considered under food additive provisions in the FFDCA. Safety is determined pursuant to FFDCA 402(a)(1) "Poisonous, insanitary, etc., ingredients.". Substantial equivalence is used to determine whether the DNA or resulting proteins are unsafe, by comparing the GMO with an unmodified equivalent organism that is GRAS. A specific set of indicators are measured, and if there is no substantial difference between GM and non-GM organism, then the food additive, and so, the entire GMO, is considered GRAS as well. That is my understanding.

The simplest accurate description of GM food regulation in the US, which does beg explanation, is; In the US, industry is entirely responsible for determining GM food safety. --Tsavage (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

{[ec}}Tsavage, the simple fact is that there is specialized regulation in regards to GMOs in the US. If people want to engage in personal opinion about things they think regulation should cover (which has come up here) this is not the place to engage in such personal opinion. There's been too much synthesizing going on here and personal point of views coming into play here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That's an extraordinary conclusion, "personal opinion," in the face of sources, both secondary and the actual statutes. This isn't some sort of convoluted description, it is a simple summary of the law, procedure, and responsibilities. The FDA is solely responsible for the food safety aspect of GMOs, and they have passed that responsibility to industry. The statutory law is a 1938 food safety act. What you describe as "specialized regulation" is the way the Act is applied to biotech products. The framework is not specialized in any common understanding of that term, because it cannot treat biotech products any differently than what was specified about them in 1938, which was...nothing.

It is misleading to call something specialized that is in fact a way to conform to not having specialized laws, which is the case here. Whether specialized GM food safety legislation is warranted is the great debate - to suggest the US already has them is wrong. --Tsavage (talk)

I'm sorry, but your claims are original research and more personal opinion, especially the claim that the industry is entirely responsible for determining food safety. They need to submit the data, but it's the regulatory agencies with final say. You are ignoring aspects of the regulatory process to make your claims. Both FDA and EPA are in charge of this too. The way regulatory agencies work in the U.S. is that laws are passed giving them general authority over topics, and those agencies develop the actual regulations within. It's a huge misnomer to say there isn't specialized regulation by citing the food safety act, and the level of maneuvering going on to make this claim is getting into very problematic territory. At this point, the sources contradict that there isn't specialized regulation on the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 vs Library of Congress: The United States does not have any federal legislation that is specific to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Rather, GMOs are regulated pursuant to health, safety, and environmental legislation governing conventional products.

What I summarized does not suggest that there is no evaluation of GM food in the US: there is evaluation through a voluntary process (which industry has consistently submitted to), where the results of industry testing are submitted to the FDA for approval. According to the FDA:

At some stage in the process of research and development, a firm will have accumulated the information that it believes is adequate to ensure that the product is safe and complies with the relevant provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act). The firm will then be in a position to conclude any ongoing consultation with FDA. The agency recommends that the developer take the following steps to inform FDA about bioengineered foods that are intended to be introduced into commercial distribution: submit to FDA a summary of the safety and nutritional assessment that has been conducted (as described below); and if necessary, meet with agency scientists (at headquarters or through a video- or teleconference, depending on the circumstances) to discuss the scientific data and information that support the summary of the safety and nutritional assessment.}^[5]

By law in the US, GM food is generally considered GRAS, therefore, no preapproval is required. In choosing to voluntarily submit, the objective is to confirm GRAS via substantial equivalence comparison, based on the results of industry testing. Realistically, the industry only submits results that they believe indicate equivalence/safety, so there is not much room for or likelihood of a differing conclusion in the FDA evaluation for final approval.

None of this is to suggest that the system is somehow ineffective or corrupt, however, we commonly accept neutrality and independence as cornerstones of fair and impartial decision-making, culturally and legally, so it would seem to be somewhat disingenuous at best to avoid making clear the voluntary nature of the safety approval, and the industry source of the results. This speaks to the Library of Congress noting: Compared to other countries, regulation of GMOs in the US is relatively favorable to their development. We should be clear, straightforward, and comprehensive. --Tsavage (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What you summarized says there isn't federal legislation that specifically names GMOs, not that there isn't regulation developed by regulatory agencies. That's the key content problem here, and even just changing the content to say there isn't specific legislation by name is still a problem because it ignores that regulations actually are in place. In addition to those problems, you're still focusing just on the FDA here. Focusing on the actual content at hand, the content is not supported by sources. It's directly contradicted by them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

With Tryptofish's recent edit, I for one am good with the change. In the future, let's first remember that we need to respect 1RR and engage in WP:BRD when a new change is rejected, and remember that content needs to be fleshed out in the body first, not the lede. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Trypotifish's edit excludes well-sourced information, on what editorial basis is not clear (Revise the disputed sentence, in hopes that this will resolve the lengthy arguments in talk). We should be respecting sources and balanced content, not catering to editor disputes.

In an overview of GMO regulation, that a very few countries, notably the US, which is the leading GMO producer, has no specific GMO legislation, and has an entirely voluntary safety approval process that relies on industry testing and findings, is certainly notable, and is in fact noted as noteworthy in sources. This is well-documented. The only reason I can see to exclude it is not raise anything that might cause a reader to think critically about GM food safety. I think we should be here to inform, not shape opinion.. --Tsavage (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: To be balanced, we should also at least outline the process in the EU, as the EU is usually mentioned in contrast with the US. It's all ultimately based on substantial equivalence, so the most relevant differences appear to be that there is specific EU GMO legislation and the actual approval process, that there is no presumption of GRAS, and the requirement for post-market follow-up. --Tsavage (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I really have been reading this discussion closely, and I made the edit only in the context of what I have read other editors saying. I feel strongly that this discussion was becoming an impasse and that someone needed to break the logjam. I agree that there are further details about regulation in the US and in the EU that are appropriate to including on this page, but I think that they need not be in the lead, as opposed to being explained with more nuance lower on the page. And, I want to make something else very, very clear. I see repeatedly in these discussions some editors describing AAAS as if it were some sort of K Street lobbying group. This is utter nonsense, and it needs to stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to create a different sentence that more editors think accurately reflect what is in the RS, but why did you not propose it here before changing it? I agree with Tsavage that this is not what the RS says. It is probably true and you can probably find RS that supports this view, and then we can consider whether that is what is proposed is better than what is written. But the RS that is currently cited for that sentence is high quality, and what you wrote does not reflect what is in the article. That RS summarizes what the regulations ARE not what they SHOULD be. The other RS I provided does the same, although the other RS does talk more about arguments people have made against the U.S. regulation approach. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind that you reverted it, and I hope that editors can come up with an alternative that gets consensus. Good luck. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Seeing this revert, it's looking like we don't have any consensus version, so I've restored the last clean version. I agree that any content in the lede on regulation needs to have that nuance developed in the body first instead of trying to insert it directly there. I'll note that the content I just removed has been edit warred in before when it was clear those that wanted it would need to gain consensus on the talk page instead, so we should not be seeing that happen again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There was consensus for that sentence. You were the only one who objected to it. You are the one who is edit-warring against consensus with such tendentious edits and removals of well-sourced material. That includes your removal of the sentence about bans. Your words apply to you: "These tendentious tactics, especially the edit warring, needs to stop." --David Tornheim (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry David, but you were alerted from the start that there wasn't ever consensus for this before you initially re-reverted it back in even after I specifically mentioned to follow BRD if you felt strongly about including it. I can't make it any clearer than that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of the different readings of the sources by different editors, partly because legal issues are not my forte as an editing topic. But, given how difficult it is proving to attain consensus about what the sentence should say, would it perhaps be better to leave it out of the lead section, and instead, deal with it lower on the page, where there is less need to keep it succinct? I'm not persuaded that it is necessary to cover this point in the lead, and I don't think that the WHO source about case-by-case requires an immediately following analysis of where the testing does or does not occur. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• In reviewing some materials, I found other statements that address this issue about testing (or more specifically lack thereof): [6], [7], where the AMA calls for "pre-market" testing. I still do not understand why that is not in the lede of the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd still like to move forward with this... --David Tornheim (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Would it work better for you to work with my revised proposal below, or to put forward an alternative proposal? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

General agreement sentence, continued

I'm continuing this discussion from #Break, first sentence, above.

Existing language on the page now

At present, the sentence in the lead is:

There is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.

Citations

Proposal first draft

Based on the discussion about, I want to propose the following as one possible revision of that sentence, on this page and on the other pages where it takes place:

There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.

Citations

I recognize that some editors may disagree with this, and if so, I urge them to propose an exact wording and sourcing for alternative versions. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• oppose: Although I have not stated it above, I preferred your more recent version that said "but see also" and referred to Domingo and Krimsky and the inclusion of that material in the body of the article--more NPOV. Regardless, I oppose the change to "scientific consensus" which has a different meaning than "general scientific agreement" as I explained previously (diff to be provided). I oppose the change for all the reasons the original language about "scientific consensus" presented and argued at length the massive second RfC here about this language and the creation of settled language in late August-early September 2015, as I explained previously above here and here. One last concern is that some articles (e.g. Genetically modified food) say that "that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health...". This is closer to the language that comes from the E.U. report that uses the phrase that GMOs are not "per se" riskier. That language is more precise. I acknowledge that the recent addition of the language by you about case-by-case testing has been an improvement. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC) (revised 08:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

Two things: Given the discussion at NORN, I would encourage you to find a non-OR source for "general scientific agreement". And I fully realize that there is no way that we are going to get unanimous agreement for anything about this sentence. That's just the way it is. So, for that reason, I would ask that editors not simply treat this as a support/oppose vote, but instead provide exact wording with sourcing for alternative versions. If there really are multiple draft versions that have some traction, then we can have an ArbCom-supervised RfC similar to the one that took place for Jerusalem, to select among them. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: No need (at least for me) to provide links to the previous RfC and subsequent discussion. I'm quite familiar with it. And what I am discussing here is in conformity with the close of that RfC, despite what some other editors have claimed. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I will make a more specific proposal. It might take a few days. The statement here (assuming it also includes Domingo, Krimisky and possibly Panchin (who I am unfamiliar with)) is a more NPOV treatment:

Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council,[12] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[13] and the American Medical Association.[14]

Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations,[15] organic farming organizations,[16] and consumer organizations.[17] A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US’s approach to regulating GMOs.[18]

--David Tornheim (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks David. I'll be happy to compare versions when you have had time to get that ready. By the way, what you have above includes more than the sentence I was discussing. In what you have there, everything from "Groups in the US opposed to GMOs..." on is material that I would be quite willing to accept as coming after the sentence that I propose. And to all editors who object to my proposed version: please remember that the best thing for you to do is to present a specific alternative, which could perhaps be David's. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am in general on board with this as a potential proposal. It generally reflects the sources regardless of personal editor views on the subject. The only tweak I'd suggest is moving Panchin into the but see also [4] alongside Krimsky and Domingo as it address the claims of those sources directly. It basically tells the story through successive refs that way. That would seem to satisfy WP:FRINGE at least, and I'd be ok with that version as text.

That said, I still think an even better approach would be to tackle Krimsky, Panchin, etc. head on in the text, potentially even before we initiate an RfC. With that, I'm going to initially float the idea here of adding this as new content. If the content itself needs discussion, I'd go with a new talk section to avoid clutter here. If for some reason it doesn't work out, and an RfC is needed, we could discuss including it in this talk section as a different proposal. I feel like focusing on two different sentences in an RfC might be asking a bit much for respondents in this topic though, so it seems worthwhile to take a try intermediate attempt beforehand. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to have Panchin with the other two. I'm fine with the new statement you added to the body, and I think it could be in the lead as well, though I don't know if it's too important either way - probably not important enough to risk derailing an RfC for. But hopefully another RfC won't actually be necessary, since the general concepts of the sentence aren't really changing, after all. Sunrise (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think this proposal is a large improvement over the current version. One thing I haven't mentioned yet, though, is the phrasing for the "case-by-case" statement. First, AFAIK it's a true statement, and one that should be included prominently. I haven't seen anyone cite RS/AC calling for more sourcing yet, but here are a few sources to try and address this anyways. Only one of them (the second) uses the phrasing "general agreement," and it's just the abstract of a scientist's presentation, but the third comes pretty close several times. So these may or may not be useful and/or could be a basis for different wording.
  • Haslberger AG (2003). "Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects". Nat Biotechnol. 21 (7): 739–41. doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. PMID 12833088.
  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2006). Enhancing Developing Country Participation in FAO/WHO Scientific Advice Activities: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Meeting. Food & Agriculture Org. p. 43. ISBN 978-92-5-105632-5.
  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2008). "GM food safety assessment tools for trainers" (PDF). Retrieved 2016-02-08.
  • As an aside, [8] may also be useful at some point for a statement on case-by-case evaluation for environmental concerns.

The second thing is juxtaposition - in a way, the phrase is positioned as if it refutes the first part of the sentence, and the use of the word "but" to indicate contrast doesn't help. I think replacing "but" with "and" might be an improvement, but I think a better option would be something like "and there is general agreement that..." if we have the sourcing for it. Or another option would be to put it in a separate sentence. Sunrise (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll reply to both of you here. First, about additional sources for "case-by-case", that was very helpful. I figured one more source would be good enough, so I added the Codex source as citation 11. Thanks. I have mixed feelings about combining the Panchin source into the note about Domingo and Krimsky, and I could go either way about it. It would be easy to do, and I would want to change "But see also:" to "But compare:". On the other hand, an argument can be made that Panchin isn't responding directly to Domingo and Krimsky, per the talk section below this one. Given subsequent talk, what do you think now? Now as for "but" versus "and", I disagree. I really do see it as a "but" situation. It's not a refutation, but it is a caveat that the sources explicitly say. In other words, it's the opposite of the sources saying "there is no evidence of harm and no need for further testing". About the various points about material beyond just this one sentence, I also like an in-depth explanation of Panchin, Krimsky, and so forth later on in the page, but I want to focus on this sentence for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

On the note of Panchin not responding directly to Domingo of Krimsky, I don't think we need to consider that aspect. The point I've been focusing on is that each of those three comment on the same aspect of the literature, not each other. We're not looking at saying Domingo and Krimsky said X, but Panchin says they are wrong. Instead, the intent is to say Domingo and Krimsky said studies exist that claim harm, but later review of studies showing harm show the claims are unsupported. Basically, someone said these studies exist, but more in-depth analysis of those studies show they are flawed. Does that clear the intent up a little? My thinking is that with those two studies mentioned, they already have been given ample weight and don’t need to be mentioned within the consensus statement. The But compare option seems like an ok alternative I wouldn't completely disregard either though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your reasoning about that. And I don't feel strongly about this, either way. I'm still wondering whether it is too unclear to readers why we would tell them to compare these three sources. It's clear to you and me, but we have been discussing this in great detail, whereas readers come here with fresh eyes. Whether we use Panchin as a rebuttal source in that way, or not, really does not change the meaning of the text, and the discussion section below draws attention to the limits of using Panchin for this narrow purpose, as opposed to citing it as one more source for the mainstream consensus. A reader can readily understand why Domingo, and especially Krimsky, are in a footnote about "but see also", whereas it is unclear what the pattern is if Panchin is the third member of that note. And, really, I'm not seeing any problem with the sentence giving too much weight to Domingo and Krimsky. For both NPOV and for (relative) editorial peace, I'd just as soon not try too hard to put Domingo and Krimsky down. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think your suggestion from earlier to use a note is a good one, and could help place them in context. "And contrast," as you used below, might work as well. The cynical side of me isn't really surprised by the objections to Panchin, but I guess that's neither here nor there.

With regards to but/and, I do agree that it is/should be a caveat in a sense. My primary concern is that the wording can be interpreted as implying that currently available foods may not have been sufficiently tested, which would go against the sources. A comment on post-market monitoring (of current foods) works, but I'd also prefer wording that makes it clear it's new foods that should be tested, and (explicitly or implicitly) that previous foods already passed that standard. Something like "but that new foods" would probably be fine, assuming the sourcing can support that. Sunrise (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. And yeah, pretty much nothing about these discussions surprises me any more. I'm struggling with the "new" descriptor. It gets complicated to make the sentence say that new GMs need to be tested on a case-by-case basis but old and new should have post-market monitoring – how can "new" be inserted into the sentence? To me, the wording does seem to say implicitly that previous GMs have passed the standard, because it says that the scientific consensus is that they are safe. Put another way, existing food needed to be tested, and was, and passed, and future food needs to be tested too. I'm sympathetic to editors on the other "side" of the discussion, that the scientific consensus does not go so far as saying that existing regulations are sufficient to assure safety in the future. After all, the AMA pretty much says just that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that version as expressing an implied contradiction, first making the statement on currently available GM foods, then saying that (all) GM foods should (in future) be tested, with the parts in parentheses being one way to interpret the second part of the sentence. I see it mostly as something that could trip readers up if they don't parse the sentence carefully. But adding "before introduction" is a great solution. I also agree that the existing regulations may not be sufficient in the future (I haven't studied that aspect of the subject enough to make a judgement either), and that the consensus doesn't address their suitability. Sunrise (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither version is accurate. We should reflect what review studies have said, that no evidence has been found that (currently available) GMO foods are not safe. GMO advocates want to draw a parallel with climate change science, where there is a consensus. TFD (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure which sources are "GMO advocates" here. And to be precise, the sources say that no evidence has been found that (currently available) GMO foods are less safe than conventional foods. But I think my proposal is consistent with that. And as I have been saying repeatedly, I really hope that editors who dislike the proposal here will actually propose alternatives. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"GMO advocates" are people who advocate the use (and government subsidization) of GMO products. As you are aware, the same people who fund climate change skepticism websites that claim there is no scientific consensus for climate change science also fund pro-GMO sites that say there is a consensus that GMO products are safe. Yet no reliable sources say that. In the meantime, we should not make claims that are not made in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I was making sure that the "advocates" are not editors, thanks. I note with a smile that some editors (not you) complain loudly when others compare their arguments about GMOs being unsafe to the arguments that are made to cast doubt on climate change (as happened recently at ANI), but then I see editors comparing arguments that GMOs are safe to climate change denial. Apparently it's an underhanded attack when it goes in one POV direction, but speaking The Truth^TM when it goes in the other direction. But anyway – I agree enthusiastically with you that we ought not to cite scientific claims to advocacy websites funded surreptitiously by industry interests. Agreed, absolutely. So, for that reason, what I am proposing here does not do that at all. All the sources are from scientists, not advocacy groups. And I even omitted sources written by scientists who might have financial ties to industry interests. All reliable sources here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• oppose both Both are syntactically incorrect, the "but should be etc..." needs to be a new sentence, and it should explain clearly what's meant by "case by case." And, let's also be clear that consensus is centred on the concept of substantial equivalence, that GE food products are as safe as their conventional counterparts. Omitting the significance of SE here is problematic. We also need to mention the WHO advisory that "where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM food." Semitransgenic _talk. 18:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm friendly to adding something about post-market monitoring. I also am fine with going into detail about SE somewhere on the page, although I see diminishing returns about trying to fit everything into the lead. About "both", the first version is simply what the page says now. As I've said repeatedly already, it's already clear that editors are going to oppose one approach or another, so getting a version that satisfies everyone here is never going to happen. Please propose alternative versions, with specific wording and sourcing, so they can be compared side-by-side. And not a whole treatise, just a sentence or two.

That said, what do editors who basically agree with my suggested change above think about expanding the last phrase of the sentence, from: "but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.^[10][11]." to: "but should be tested on a case-by-case basis and undergo adequate post-market monitoring.^[10][11]."? I would support that change. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

there is another potentially confusing aspect here with the "but" thing, I can see where some readers - and this is not as stupid as it sounds - might view "food on the market derived from GM crops etc....but should be tested on a case by case basis" as a statement that suggests every single food product containing GMOs, of one description or another, is safety tested. This is an article about crops, what we should be saying in the lead is: they grow stuff, that stuff is tested to see if it meets SE requirements, if it does, consensus deems it safe enough to be used in food products consumed by humans etc. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It took me a bit of thought to see what you meant, but I do now understand, and I agree with you. Thinking about what has been discussed so far, and not having heard replies to some of the questions that I asked, I now revise my suggestion to:

Revised proposal

There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GMO needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction, and to undergo post-market monitoring.

Citations

But, again, I request that editors who want a different approach actually make a full proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a partial restatement of my point from above. I'm fine with this version, but I'd like the wording to clarify the distinction between current and new/hypothetical foods in the second part of the sentence. Maybe something like, "but that new foods should be tested on a tested on a case-by-case basis, and that already-approved foods should undergo post-market monitoring." The phrasing is awkward there, but we can probably find better ways to communicate the same idea. Sunrise (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I just inserted "before introduction,". Does that work? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I just added "that each" for grammatical unambiguity (but feel free to revert that if there's any issue). I'll fully support this version. :-) Sunrise (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I, in turn, added "GMO" after "each", to hopefully make it clearer (and welcome to writing-by-committee!). I hope that's not a problem (and if by chance we end up leaving out the post-market part, then that will simplify it). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, no problem at all! Do you think "GM food" might be more accurate than GMO? For environmental issues I assume they're testing at the level of the organism, but for food safety I thought it's the specific food that gets assessed - e.g. if a plant's leaves produce a new pesticide then the testing would primarily focus on whether that compound is found on the fruits. Sunrise (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought about saying "GM food" instead, and what led me to "GMO" was that the page is about crops, not food. But maybe that's moot, since this sentence could end up on multiple pages, and the sentence in question is indeed about food instead of farm safety, so I'm leaning towards agreeing with that change. And two questions: Given what some editors are saying about objecting to the part about post-market monitoring, how do you feel about leaving that out? And I would like to add a second sentence, that would be pretty much the same as Tsavage's third sentence, below, about public skepticism. Would that be OK with you? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

(Fairly long response, so I've put my comment below.) Sunrise (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the before introduction part. However, post-marketing part has a lot of nuance to in sources such as "where appropriate", etc. I'd drop the part about post-market monitoring as that doesn't get extensive coverage in sources. Best not to include special cases in summary level statements, but leave the content open enough to be explained by the cited sources and any subsequent development in articles content later on. We don't need to explain everything in this sentence, so that's why have more of a preference for just sticking with the case-by-case language as we had before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I am all in favor of bringing out more details in the main text. But you keep putting me in a position where I have you insisting on a very pure representation of the science, and other editors demanding that we present all the caveats about the science. I would prefer to err on the side of not risking oversimplification of the statement that there is a scientific consensus of safety, and I don't think that the language about post-market is incorrect, and WHO does talk about it explicitly. Then again, just below, David T. also calls for leaving out the post-market stuff, so I'm going to watch and see how this shakes out. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

nah, it's shit, where is "but that each needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction, and to undergo post-market monitoring" even mentioned in the main body of text? cart before horse. Write the content, than summarise it in the lead. Failure to deal with substantial equivalence here is also a serious omission. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I am fine with adding the part that the WHO calls for the need for pre-market case-by-case testing and post-market assessment to the body of the article in the health section. Maybe we can make progress by adding material in the body first. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

"nah, it's shit": Duly noted that you said that. In light of this talk page being subject to DS, the next time that happens, I will take you to AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

David, I still hope that you are working on an alternative version of the sentence in the lead, and I look forward to being able to compare it with what I propose. Given all the drama that has occurred over the sentence saying scientific consensus or agreement, I feel strongly that we need to solve the issue of what the sentence should say, and I do not want to wait and wait for the page as a whole to be rewritten. Furthermore, the lead sentence appears in so many other pages that the issue needs to be resolved regardless of how this particular page might be revised. As for the WHO caveats, it seems to me to misrepresent the scientific consensus to leave it out. At the same time, I'm fine with expanding on the summary in the main text. Just above, I see KingofAces wanting to leave out post-market monitoring, so if editors with a variety of perspectives want to leave it out, I might still do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I'm in favor of leaving post-marketing out of summary level content, not content in the main body. I'm mainly trying to keep a focus on concise summary level content that anchors the smaller ideas that can be fleshed out later. If we don't give RfC respondents something concise with just a few main ideas in the sentence, they're not going to be able to make heads or tails of it all when going through sources. Best stick with core ideas first and figure out what follows after we have something to center them on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

arbitrary break

(continuing discussion from a few paragraphs up, replying to Tryptofish) I don't feel strongly about keeping or removing the part about post-market monitoring. For the third sentence, do you mean "Nonetheless, there is significant public mistrust of GM food and the science supporting it"? I haven't been following that section too closely, but I'd probably support including that information in some form. If we use the Pew survey, it's probably better to present it as a contrast between scientists and the general public (I think that would help provide a transition and maintain the context from the preceding sentence as well, then we can follow up with the list of reasons for opposition). The simplest change I'd support would be to change it to "Nonetheless, there is significant public opposition to GM food" - removing "and the science supporting it" since I don't think it's verified by those sources, e.g. the mention of "mistrust" in the second source seems to refer to mistrust of regulators and the government, not scientists. (Also replacing "mistrust" with "opposition" to make the statement more concrete, but that's less important.)

A change acknowledging the difference might be something like this (rough example, same sources we're discussing): There is a scientific consensus[1][2][3][4] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[5][6][7][8] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[9][10] Nonetheless, members of the public are much more likely than scientists to perceive GM food as unsafe, with a 2015 Pew survey finding a gap of 51 percentage points.[11][12] This version avoids the word "significant" - addition of something concrete (the poll result) makes its vagueness less of a concern, though there's still a potential confusion with statistical significance. It might also be better to avoid words like "nonetheless" in this case, since the previous sentence already contains a contrast (indicated by "but"), so it's grammatically ambiguous which part of the sentence the new statement is a contrast to. Of course, this is all contingent on sources, e.g. I'd drop the New Yorker source and replace it with a scientific paper (maybe [9], for example). We could probably also find a sourceable statement about the results of this difference, like "...public opposition to GM foods has led to bans in countries such as [insert countries]." Sunrise (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that bans should be mentioned and I really don't understand why Kingofaces deleted my mention of it and why bans are not mentioned anywhere in this article or the GM food article. It is certainly notable: Bloomberg, CNBC, The Guardian, BBC, Time, The Nation, Reuters, Scientific American, Moscow Times, more Bloomberg, more Reuters and others [10], [11], [12]. I do not think it is appropriate to say the bans are "because of public opposition". The RS that I have reviews says that there are bans but does not say because of opposition. Opinion pieces like this are not WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I got to this via the discussion in the talk section just below, where I asked whether Tsavage would be interested in merging his proposal together with mine. He hasn't replied yet, and I recognize that editors may in any case disagree with the language in my proposal about scientific consensus – and that's fine if we disagree for now. And again, I would welcome competing proposals. But, in any case, these discussions are giving me what I think are good ideas that I will want to incorporate into my own proposal, regardless of what other proposals may emerge.

So, yes, I meant that sentence about public mistrust. And I've been starting to work on finding more and better sources for it, so there's plenty of room for revising the exact wording of that sentence. And I don't feel strongly about including or not including the post-market marketing bit, so unless other editors feel strongly that they want to omit it, I'd rather keep it in order to not overstate the "pro-GMO" "side" of the issue.

And, as I was thinking about the second proposal's language about safety being based on decisions by regulatory agencies, it got me thinking about those countries where the government decision is against GM crops, and I think that we should make that clear. So, as it happens, I was already coming to the conclusion that I would like a sentence about that, which is very much in line with what David just said.

So I'm starting to think of this as a three-sentence, rather than one-sentence, proposal. I'm thinking sentence one would be what I have been working on above, about scientific consensus. Sentence two would be about bans etc., along the lines of what David is suggesting. And sentence three would be about public perceptions. Obviously, I haven't yet fleshed out the second and third proposed sentences, but I will start working on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What you are proposing would be a big improvement over what we have now, as long as Domingo & Krimsky are included in sentence #1. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I am very happy to hear that. You can see above how my current version cites Domingo and Krimsky. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

First proposal revised

Sorry it took me a while to do this, but here is my revised version of the proposal:

Revised further just below. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe, with a 2015 Pew Research Center survey finding a difference of 51 percentage points in the US. The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.

Citations

What do editors think? If anyone objects strongly, please offer alternative proposals with as much specificity as here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

5 references for the differing views of the public and scientists seems excessive, especially as the refs as written seem to apply to a single Pew pole. 2 or at most 3 should be sufficient.Dialectric (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about that myself. Some of those might better be taken to the main text, instead of the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, we might want to write the sentence differently. I'm not sure that we need the details about the Pew poll; I put it there following a suggestion by Sunrise that we say something numerically specific instead of making a general statement, but I could also see making the sentence more general. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If this is in the lead then I would leave out the numbers for the Pew poll altogether. They would fit better in the body. AIRcorn (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm leaning that way, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like it would be best to leave the poll details out of that sentence, so:

There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.

Citations

All I did was to shorten that sentence and remove one source at the end of that sentence; I didn't change anything else. I would like very much to see whether or not we have a consensus to move forward, so I look forward to hearing what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm on board with this. However, I think we can add the last sentence without an RfC, and that would also help keep an RfC on the scientific consensus information from losing focus. Scientific consensus, public perception, and policy might be biting off too much for that. If we get to the point of an RfC, I'd rather present something as concise as we can without tangential content that really isn't disputed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree with you. As for the additional sentences, I've got them there for the time being, because what I have seen of other potential proposals in this talk (albeit in very preliminary form) has also been multi-sentence and has also covered all of these points. However, it is unclear to me at this time whether or not other editors would still like to present other proposals, so it is likewise unclear whether or not we will need an RfC. If anyone is planning to develop competing proposals, it would be great if they would say so, and I'd be happy to wait for them to do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with this version. The second part isn't quite what I'd write, but all things considered the differences are minor. :-) The additional sources for the gap in safety perception are helpful, and now that they're added I don't mind removing the specific number. Sunrise (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree about adding the last sentence without further ado, and have written a section Talk:Genetically modified crops#Sentence on Regulations by Country here to make sure there are no objections. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

After reviewing this version and the sourcing, it is closer to what I have read in the RS than anything else I have seen proposed. (I definitely prefer this more concise wording on public perception.) However, one issue is that the sentences do not reflect what is in all the sources. Krimsky and Domingo are cited but their opinions are not reflected in the text. A couple of other points:

(1) The FAO source makes an important point that there are possible unintended problems with GMO's compared to conventional foods:

The lack of evidence of negative effects, however, does not mean that new transgenic foods are without risk (ICSU, GM Science Review Panel). Scientists acknowledge that not enough is known about the long-term effects of transgenic (and most traditional) foods. It will be difficult to detect long-term effects because of many confounding factors such as the underlying genetic variability in foods and problems in assessing the impacts of whole foods. Furthermore, newer, more complex genetically transformed foods may be more difficult to assess and may increase the possibility of unintended effects. [emphasis added].

A summary of this paragraph should be in the proposal (and the Domingo ref could be attached to that summary as well.)

(2) The Pamela Ronald ref should be removed for reasons I (and others) have previously stated, and because of citation overkill.

I confess that I did not read everything by every contributor above and below on these many proposals, since so much of this has been rehashed so many times before and it gets exhausting. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, David, for your thoughtful examination, and thank you also for the points on which we agree. However, I personally disagree (strongly!) with all of the changes that you have proposed, and based on earlier discussions with other editors here, I think that many of the editors who support Proposal 1 would also object. (For example, there was specific discussion of mentioning Krimsky and Domingo in the main text, and several editors strongly rejected doing so.) In my opinion, it would actually be very helpful to having a good RfC if there were one more proposal, that alters Proposal 1 in the ways that you propose. It would be very helpful in laying out the areas where editors have disagreed, to a greater extent than the three existing proposals would. Would you like to put it forth as Proposal 4? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Are other editors planning to propose other versions? Do any other editors object to this proposal? I know that this discussion has been announced on multiple pages, so anyone interested has had the opportunity to follow this discussion. If no one is going to object or to propose something else, then there will come a time at which I will want to implement this proposal. But I would welcome other proposals. If anyone just says that they want to take it in a different direction, I will be happy to wait for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I still don't agree that the sources support the wording, scientific consensus. I think discussion has gone quiet because you were working on this version. I believe there is support for broad agreement that no harm has been documented to date. We should start a clear new section, doesn't have to be formal RfC, and put in this final wording you have to get new input.

My proposal for a safety SUMMARY in the lead, still stands, that safety is determined where GM food is available, by government regulation generally based on substantial equivalence. A summary of the scientific findings should be done in plain English - "majority of studies of X kind, etc, find..." etc - but not use scientific consensus. No facts are being obscured, it is an issue of balanced, neutral presentation. That's my opinion. --Tsavage (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I don't really expect to further revise this proposal based on further discussion. It's been discussed enough at the drafting stage. If you disagree with it, please present an alternative proposal that will be ready for comparison in a formal RfC. How long would you like to have, to work on it? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Gimme a day, and I'll include a sentence saying something like, "A majority of the scientific research to date indicates that no harm has been found, for instance, a review of 1700 studies...concluded that "quote'", which would be in a paragraph with the existing "regulation based on substantial equivalence" wording that I already posted a while ago.

For the record, discussion seems to have been so chilled and overshadowed by the strife in this topic area - ongoing endless argument over relatively small details, constant attempts to characterize editors as in some way bad, and now the continual threat of summary sanctions under DS - that it feels like normal healthy editorial debate, to be expected in coverage of such a real-world controversial subject, has been stifled. The idea of seeking consensus on any content seems hollow. --Tsavage (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Second proposal revised

Didn't need a day. Here's my take on a GM food safety summary for the lead. I do think that we should be concentrating on improving these articles for a period of time, and then bringing the leads in line, rather than launching another RfC over this one statement. For one, this allows time to cover the summary statements and sources in more depth in the articles proper, where currently there may be little or no mention. --Tsavage (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Genetically modified foods, where available, have been assessed for safety by the respective national regulatory agencies, which have determined them to be as safe to eat as conventional food. In addition, there is no evidence to date of harm caused by eating GM food; for instance, a 2013 review of 1,783 scientific publications on GM crop safety concluded that "research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GE crops." Nonetheless, there is significant public mistrust of GM food and the science supporting it.

Citations
References

This is all mainstream, non-controversial information, as are the sources (at least, for this use; the Nicolia review may be disputed in some quarters), and I believe there are multiple alternative RS sources for all statements. --Tsavage (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I expect that we will have a formal process for the community to choose among these proposals. Other editors: please indicate if you are planning to present additional proposals. As for the second proposal, a criticism that occurs to me, and that you may want to consider, is that there are multiple governmental regulatory agencies that have banned or restricted GM crops, so it may not be accurate to say what you have in the first sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• I want to look at the first sentence based on the two references. In the first reference (ICS) says:

Currently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat. Food safety assessments by national regulatory agencies in several countries have deemed currently available GM foods to be as safe to eat as their conventional counter parts and suitable for human consumption.

The second source WHO says:

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health.

Our proposed sentence is:

Genetically modified foods, where available, have been assessed for safety by the respective national regulatory agencies, which have determined them to be as safe to eat as conventional food.

Most of these suffer from circularity (or redundancy). Here is why: It is the job of food regulatory agencies to protect food safety. If they approve the food for consumption, by definition they have deemed it to be safe. So, the mere fact that it is available as food without warning labels tells us that they approved it and that they deem it to be safe. So, really all that is being said in the various 3 quotes is that these regulatory agencies have deemed some GMO products to be safe, and the authors of the statements agree (or do not take issue) with those assessments, but they hide behind some wish-washy language. Also, when I see a comparison of the safety of GMO food to conventional food, I detect an attempt to argue for or against labeling.

All that needs to be said is "Regulatory agencies in N countries have deemed X GMO foods as safe to eat" (straightforward and indisputable NPOV fact--the number for N and X could be identified in specificity or as "few", "some", a "number" or whatever is appropriate). And the ICS and WHO (and perhaps a # of other entities) agree with those assessments. Also, I do not see any of this as a contradiction to the fact that some countries ban GMO's--those countries are not necessarily saying that the GMO's that have been approved are "unsafe". That's all for now... --David Tornheim (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This one appears to violate WP:FRINGE as it's ignoring that the scientific consensus even exists and undue focus solely on regulatory agenecies rather than the scientific consensus as whole. We just reference the scientific community as whole rather than this sudden focus on just regulatory agencies to remove the consensus language. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Attention editors

wrap

I realize that some editors may disagree with language that says that there is a scientific consensus, or language that says that GMOs are considered safe, etc. That's fine, and we can work with differences of opinion. But there is going to be an RfC, one that will probably be binding, that will choose between the two proposals above as well as any others. So if you want to present other versions to be considered, you need to present them. If you indicate here that you are planning to work on that, I'll be happy to give you the time that you need, but if no one responds, I will be going to ArbCom fairly soon, to ask for the RfC – so editors who disagree need to act on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I will work on an alternative. Please give me (or anyone else who wants to make another proposal) a reasonable deadline. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Please take as much time as you need. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Second proposal

what I would say, sources exist for all of this:

GE crops intended for human consumption are tested to establish if they are substantially equivalent to conventional crops. The FAO and the WHO view substantial equivalence as a means of assessing the relative safety of GE food products derived from such crops. While currently available GM food produce is generally considered to pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food, newly developed crops are safety tested on a case-by-case basis. The WHO also recommends post-market monitoring of previously tested food crops, where appropriate.

Semitransgenic _talk. 20:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest getting that down to a single sentence, given that it is in the lead – or at least make it very clear how it would fit into the lead. Also, you need to present it with full sourcing, because otherwise there just cannot be a comparison. And you may want to work with David T, who says he is also preparing an alternative version. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

squashing what you guys want to say into a single sentence does not serve our ends, it's a distraction. Relative to the length of the article, the lead is quite short, nothing lost in saying what needs to be said with more words. This particular article is about crops, as you know, there's another one we have about food, so the food use aspect here is subsidiary, but, how we get from the GE crops to the GM food should be clearly explained in the lead. Maybe remember who most of the readers are, they don't know as much as you. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

How would you make it fit with what currently comes right after? "GM crops also provide a number of ecological benefits.[15] However, opponents have objected to GM crops on several grounds, including environmental concerns, whether food produced from GM crops is safe, whether GM crops are needed to address the world's food needs, and concerns raised by the fact these organisms are subject to intellectual property law." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

What comes directly before: "A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that GM technology adoption had reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%.[4] Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.[4]" --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll tell you how, you rewrite the entire lead so it actually does what it's supposed to do: summarise the article by touching on the main content headings. Example, the 'history' section, how is this properly represented in the lead? for instance is a fact like "the first genetically modified crop plant was produced in 1982" worth noting upfront? main types of modification? or mention of something as important as Bacillus thuringiensis? we could go on. Basically, the lead is woefully inadequate, getting one sentence fixed will not address this. Semitransgenic _talk. 23:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I'm open to doing that. But show me; don't just tell me. I'm not going to rewrite the whole thing myself. So I think you should, perhaps with other editors, draft an entire new lead, with complete sourcing, and propose it here in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

and you highlight yet another problem. If a main body is properly referenced, lead summaries of that content should not require citations. So perhaps the issue is with the actual article and not simply the lead? Semitransgenic _talk. 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it, but feel free to propose whatever you want to propose. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

so you are not seeing the lack of any coverage of safety testing in a section other than "controversy" as problematic?

Or that the words "substantial equivalence" appear once throughout (the last two words of the entire article)?

And you do know there is actually no mention of "case-by-case" in the main text, right? So you are summarising something that isn't even mentioned in the article?

And lets look at the proportionality issue.

Article prose size (text only): 5922 words "readable prose size."

Lead prose size: 337 words

Consensus/safety sentence in lead: 32 words

Consensus/safety sentence in main body: 24 words

You don't see it? too busy politicking to actually build an accurate article I guess. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, these things are plain to see. To repeat myself from Genetically modified food a few days ago:

Per policy, Wikipedia should say exactly what reliable sources say, in easily verifiable language, avoiding original interpretation, which includes synthesis of multiple sources to arrive at an original conclusion. And the lead of a developed article should only summarize key points in the text, and not introduce new material not in the text. It's pretty straightforward.

As for the scientific consensus/agreement statement:

• a single sentence that's been disputed for the past 3-1/2 years.
• a single sentence that consumes much time and energy, and causes disruption
• what is being argued over is not inclusion or exclusion of information
• the debate/dispute is over choice of which words to use in an optional summary sentence
• last RfC, argued for nearly two months and closed only six months ago, involved over 30 editors reviewing some 18 sources
• they did not come close to agreement on sourcing for "scientific consensus" wording

Given the above, editors continue to pursue that one specific wording, which seems to draw everyone who wishes to edit around the GM topic into dispute, or warns them away.

Read the Global warming lead, it clearly and unequivocally presents two different, strong scientific agreements in the first seven sentences, without using the "consensus" word, and imo communicates much better, more informatively and neutrally, without it.

I would like to get back to normal incremental editing, and improve articles like this one that is way substandard, and not have a perennial dispute over a single optional phrase sucking up all of the oxygen. Simple, straightforward, common sense. This is supposed to be what Wikipedia is about. --Tsavage (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I hope that you don't agree with the part about me supposedly being "too busy politicking to actually build an accurate article". Nice, real nice.

There is a sentence in the lead of this page, and in the lead sections of multiple other pages, that says that there is a "general scientific agreement". And there is clearly a need to address all the concerns about that sentence. I'm all in favor of making sure that the material is also covered in the main text. But the fact that some of it hasn't yet been added to the main text is no reason to wiki-lawyer that it must be omitted from the lead, when it's already there in some form, and has been discussed at such great length even in a previous RfC. I've presented a well-sourced proposal for an improved version of the sentence in question. I've invited other editors to present alternative proposals. And I still would welcome such alternatives. I'm getting the impression, and I really hope that I'm mistaken, that editors are getting cold feet about proposing an alternative sentence, and are trying to change the subject. In any case, I still think that it is necessary to say, in the lead, that there is such a scientific consensus, and I urge editors who disagree to propose alternative lead sentences. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I proposed alternative wording several days ago in GM food Talk. Here it is again, with more context.

1. The practical purpose of The Sentence in the lead is to give readers an idea of the safety of GM food. No doubt the lead is used by some readers as a quick reference, without reference to the rest of the article, so there seems to be a practical value in answering such an obvious GMO question in the lead of at least the main articles, like GM foods and GM crops (temporarily putting aside WP:LEAD guidelines).

2. The science behind food safety assessment falls into two distinct groups: the science that informs the legal availability of GM foods (iow, the science that literally determines that the food on the shelves is safe), and the ongoing research into various aspects of GMO safety. The Sentence represents the latter.

In fixing the safety information in the lead, we are not limited to, and shouldn't be primarily concerned with, the ongoing research, we should include a statement about the science that is most relevant to food that is currently available.

My proposed wording, to replace the agreement statement in the lead is (from GM foods Talk, posted several days ago):

Currently available genetically modified foods have been assessed for safety by national regulatory agencies in several countries and are thus considered to be as safe to eat as conventional food. In addition, there is no evidence to date of harm caused by eating GM food. Nonetheless, there is significant public mistrust of GM food and the science supporting it.

It clearly states the official mainstream safety position, and indicates what it is based on. It also presents the sharply contrasting opinion of a significant segment of the public. The safety case is properly portrayed as being based on regulation, which determines the applicable science. It is fully international in scope. It also provides a natural lead-in to coverage of regulation, the science behind (legal) safety assessment (which begins with substantial equivalence), differences between countries, and public perception. It's easily verifiable in the cited sources, and there are other sources that can additionally or alternatively support the text.

To cover ongoing research, a "Scientific opinion" section in articles where it is relevant makes sense, and that is where we can place The Sentence while it is adjusted. --Tsavage (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Thank you. I do not think anyone would object to the third sentence of what you have there, and I would be willing to accept it as a second sentence of my own proposal. For purposes of easier comparison, please let me reformat your first two sentences as the other proposals have been:

Currently available genetically modified foods have been assessed for safety by national regulatory agencies in several countries and are thus considered to be as safe to eat as conventional food. In addition, there is no evidence to date of harm caused by eating GM food.

Citations

So we have that, which is certainly a good possibility to consider, and we also have what Semitransgenic put above, which lacks sources. I'm not sure how I feel about saying that they "have been assessed for safety by national regulatory agencies in several countries and are thus considered to be...", because it oversimplifies the scientific process to some extent. They are not "considered to be..." only because of the decisions of regulatory agencies – governments officially consider them that way for that reason, but scientists also consider them that way, and it's not because of government decisions. But again, I am in full agreement with your third sentence (that I left out here), and I would be happy to add it as a second sentence to my own proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

1. The third sentence is an integral part of that food safety statement. This is a general encyclopedia, context is everything. Food is literally on the market - "currently available" - (and in some places, currently unavailable) based on regulation, the government, by the people, for the people, and public opinion factors strongly into the equation. Isn't that the argument against current biotech restrictions, it's because of the public's wrongheaded views? Trying to cover safety consideration primarily from an abstract, theoretical scientific assessment ignores the social context. It is one aspect, but clearly not the overriding aspect in the real world. Wikipedia is not here to reflect its own reality.

2. "thus considered" - As in/better: ...by national regulatory agencies in several countries, which have determined them to be as safe as.... And we are not leaving out scientific opinion, we are summarizing the main reality. When people support or oppose an aspect of GMOs or biotech in general, it is about legislation and regulation, which incorporates a very specific subset of relevant science. In a summary, we should start with what us the most important and directly relevant. --Tsavage (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you very much about that third sentence, and the more I think about it, the more I am in favor of including it, no matter what else we might say. So I'm likely to add it also to my own proposal. As for the regulatory agencies, I'm inclined to think that this is something that will best be dealt with by formal RfC, because I think including or not including the scientific material is going to be one of those things where involved editors will have unmovable opinions. But personally, I still think it's a losing proposition to frame it in terms of regulation, because, thinking about it further, it occurs to me that there are numerous nations where the regulations make GM foods prohibited, and thus a blanket statement that regulatory agencies have determined this, even with a qualifying phrase about it being "several countries" rather than most, becomes a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The point is, it is regulation that determines currently available food, not general scientific opinion, now or at any time in the last 15-20 years since the prevailing regulations in various countries have been in place, therefore, it is misleading to say that or to give that impression.

Currently available food is considered safe because of safety assessments based on substantial equivalence. The directly relevant science is the concept of substantial equivalence, and related aspects like selection of comparison plant, targeted testing, the methods used for that testing, natural variation, and any issues surrounding those topics. Roughly speaking, that would appear to be the first level of GMO safety science that readers should be made aware of.

Scientific opinion is also important, in proper context. If strong indication of harm appeared, then the regulations would have to change, but until that point, saying, for example, 523 rat feeding studies all find no harm, is NOT directly relevant to the fact that GMO food is "currently available."

The summary I proposed can be easily tweaked to address your concern, for example:

Genetically modified foods, where available, have been assessed for safety by the respective national regulatory agencies, which have determined them to be as safe to eat as conventional food.[1][2] In addition, there is no evidence to date of harm caused by eating GM food.[2] Nonetheless, there is significant public mistrust of GM food and the science supporting it.[3][4]

The point to be conveyed is that the regulations determine both the science and the availability, scientific opinion does not determine availability, so to suggest that is misleading and non-neutral. We need to have the main statement first, about regulation and substantial equivalence, not just the scientific opinion statement. --Tsavage (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

That revision, with "where available", does help, thanks. I'm wondering whether we could actually merge your proposal with mine. How would you feel about having three sentences: the first sentence would be your first sentence, the second would be mine (thus replacing your second sentence), and the third sentence would be your first sentence? If there is any chance that we could get a consensus version, that would certainly save a lot of drama. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

If we are approaching this discussion similar to the last RfC, this content is eventually going into not only the lede, but other sections within the articles where this gets mentioned. It wouldn't be only in the lede. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

So, if editors show strong objections grounded in WP:PAG that the proposed change is WP:OR, WP:SYN, not NPOV and a PR statement from industry to advocate for the technology, and that there is no consensus for your language as was the case for the 2nd RFC, you are just planning to ignore what the other editors' objections and put the material in the article anyway and ignore the process? --David Tornheim (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not hearing KingofAces saying that he intends to "put the material in the article" unilaterally. And I do not intend to do it, which is why I am carefully discussing it in talk. At the same time, David, you previously said that you were working on an alternative proposal. So I look forward to seeing it. As for how material will get into the page, I have every intention of asking ArbCom to order a community process for choosing amongst the various proposals, as they did previously at the Jerusalem page. And I am not going to wait overly long before I make that request, so I think it's a good idea to propose an alternative sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Third Proposal (a non-SYNTH, sourced, one-liner)

The science community holds a variety of opinions on GMOs.

Citations

petrarchan47คุก 03:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm going to add your source to the sentence in the first proposal, about differences in regulation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Panchin

From this

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

Kingofaces43 came up with this

but review of [studies reviewed by Domingo 2011 and Krinsky 2015] show the statistical methodologies were flawed and do not show evidence of harm or lack of substantial equivalence

Mention of statistical significance seems to have been added from left field, this was not a subject of either review.

The wording is so misleading it should be removed ASAP, but I will let someone else wade into those waters. You cannot use this paper to refute these reviews, and I am shocked by the attempt. If it is true that all 22 studies covered by Krimsky as well as those in Domingo have been shown to be invalid, the source added by King is not sufficient proof.

If you wish to use the paper to refute whatever studies the authors were referring to, great. I'm interested to see what they've uncovered. But to extrapolate from "some" unnamed studies to the present 'no study reviewed by Domingo or Krimsky actually showed harm, they were all flawed', without specifying what the authors were referring to, is not very encyclopedic, to put it mildly.

Is there a reason editors are hell bent on summarizing sources (shoddily, I may add) rather than giving readers an idea of their content by elaborating just a bit? petrarchan47คุก 09:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll preface this with a reminder that WP:MEDRS is clear we do not engage in personal peer-review in terms of study inclusion criteria, etc.

Panchin is clear that they aren't just using a few studies as example, but making a statement on the state of the literature as a whole. You're cherrypicking pieces of text to change the meaning. Some studies had issues with multiple comparisons, while some simply didn't do the stats at all. There were a range of issues, so trying to say Panchin doesn't have an overall consistent message on statistical methodologies because of the word some is incorrect. Panchin states, "We reviewed published articles in which undesired and statistically significant differences between GMOs and conventional crops were reported." There is no qualifier that it was only a partial review. They just simply say this is their review of the literature. If there was some flaw in the methodology where a study should have been included, a later review will need to comment on that.

To call statistical significance coming from left field is laughable. It's the basis of all claims in this science. If a previous review neglected to check for basic stats in the papers, that's still a flaw with those reviews as well when a corrective review comes along later commenting on the exact same aspect of the literature. When a study has been found to be flawed in use of statistics, it doesn't matter who cited it previously, especially when such a citation makes no mention of the validity of the stats. Claims later found to be false are simply dealt with as such under WP:WEIGHT. The fact of the matter is that Panchin is extremely critical of claims of harm in this review.

At the end of the day, all studies in the review had major statistical flaws. Panchin also does not give any weight to the idea that there is legitimate evidence of harm in the literature as a whole in any of their introductory or conclusionary statements. That contradicts in multiple ways with Krimsky and Domingo who try to claim there is evidence of harm. If there is something actually incorrect in the content I added, I am willing to discuss that, but I would expect that to be with an understanding of what it means in the literature when studies claiming statistical significance are later found to not be significant. This is simply how we address flawed science if we make any mention of it at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: After attempting to verify Kingofaces43's addition by reading the source, it seems entirely misrepresentative. (Please correct any ignorance displayed, I am a simple layperson attempting to verify what I read by following citations.)

The text, in citing Domingo and Krimsky, gives the impression that it is the studies mentioned in those reviews that are under consideration:

Some studies have claimed that genetically modified crops can cause harm,[199][200] but review of these studies show the statistical methodologies were flawed and do not show evidence of harm or lack of substantial equivalence.[201]

In fact, counting, it seems that Panchin re-examines exactly six studies. Where is the connection to any other studies? I found none. The title of the paper should more accurately be (my bolded addition): "Six Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons".

Panchin first spends some time supporting the choice of critical tool, proposing multiple comparisons errors, evaluated by applying Bonferroni correction. Looking into Bonferroni, it is described as a simple tool that can at times produce overly conservative results. Hmm.. Then I discover What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments, an interesting read, which says:

This paper advances the view, widely held by epidemiologists, that Bonferroni adjustments are, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, deleterious to sound statistical inference.

Now I'm left wondering about Panchin's a basic premise: Is Bonferroni valid? Am I to believe Wikipedia and accept that these six studies are fatally flawed because Panchin's analysis says so, when a little looking casts such doubt?

Finally, Panchin's "Conclusions" seems to consist in large part of an ideological-sounding plea for people to wake up and look at sheer numbers, even if a big percentage of those studies may in fact be invalid:

It has been argued that we might be underestimating the number of false-positive results in science in general due to bias, improper use of statistics, analysis of highly improbably hypothesis and other factors.[26] The suggested solution was to take preference for large studies or low-bias meta-analyses and to take into account the pre-study probabilities of a finding being true.

We argue that the totality of the evidence should be taken into account when drawing conclusion on GMO safety, instead of far-fetched evidence from single studies with a high risk of bias due to a large number of multiple comparisons. Perhaps more focus should be drawn to clear and relevant outcomes such as mortality rates, life expectancy or reproductive success.

Unfortunately, it takes just a single article claiming a mild difference between GM and non-GM products to stir the public debate and cause a long-lasting hysteria. ...

In the first quoted paragraph, Panchin cites Ioannidis' Why most published research findings are false. That and his ongoing work in this area appear to be widely accepted,and Panchin appears to be acknowledging that, and saying that even if a large percentage of, say, Nicolia's 1500+ studies, are false, we still have a lot of studies left. I'm confused by where I have ended up - how is this argument arrived at from Bonferroni correction applied to six studies?

This is what a straightforward attempt to verify the source by reading it resulted in. I don't think this new, limited review should be used, at least, without direct attribution, adequate background (at least mentioning Bonferroni), and in a very limited way. --Tsavage (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I went back and re-read Panchin (the whole source, not just cherry-picking passages and pasting them here with misleading bold font), to look specifically at the issues editors are raising here. I agree in part with Tsavage that Panchin specifically does a statistical analysis of six studies, as opposed to of all studies. As I read what Panchin concludes, the only way I can interpret it, as written, is that Panchin concludes that what they found in those six studies can be extrapolated to the literature as a whole. Editors may disagree about that extrapolation, but such disagreement is original research. We should word things on the page to attribute to Panchin the conclusion that the experimental evidence for problems is weak and that much of the presented data actually demonstrates the opposite, but we should not imply that Panchin actually analyzed every study. I think the wording KofA added does have a flaw in that regard, and I am going to correct it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Also, while I find the general level of re-examining sources around here is completely beyond simply identifying reliable sources, looking into the central mechanism of a study, here, Bonferroni correction, is completely reasonable - if I read, "using a microscope, we found these things," and I don't know what a microscope is, I need to find out to make sense of the statement. If Bonferroni correction is a questionable method, then we have to take that into account. Is it? --Tsavage (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Panchin say quite clearly what the title of their article says. We can argue about the exact amount to which they extrapolate, but in any case, I think that the revision that I just made of the sentence represents Panchin accurately. (Panchin say: "We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality." That sounds like extrapolation from the 6 studies to me.) On the other hand, you have said: "Is Bonferroni valid? Am I to believe Wikipedia and accept that these six studies are fatally flawed because Panchin's analysis says so?" No, don't believe Wikipedia, believe Panchin, or at least believe that Panchin says that they conclude what they conclude. Wikipedia doesn't care whether editors disagree with Panchin. There is nothing wrong with attributing that conclusion to them. You have Panchin saying that Bonferroni correction is useful for their purposes, and that other source saying that it is often not necessary for many purposes, and you are doing OR when you propose that we should conclude that Panchin misused Bonferroni correction. You then say: "Finally, Panchin's "Conclusions" seems to consist in large part of an ideological-sounding plea for people to wake up and look at sheer numbers". It's a peer-reviewed review paper in a scientific journal. If you are painting it as ideological, it isn't the source that has a problem with ideology. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm good with your update to the wording as that clears up the meaning better than what I initially had in mind. The main idea is spot on that Panchin selected studies as part of their review methodology representative of literature that can be deemed critical. They don't need to analyze every single study out there as there are always pre-screenings that go on in conducting literature reviews as to whether particular studies will even be considered. That's a bit of an art sometimes, so if there is criticism on that part, we'll need to wait for newer reviews rather than editor criticism of it. We don't know all the inclusion details (rarely is this covered to everyone's satisfaction), but Panchin does portray these findings as representative of the literature. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that your wording is an improvement, the content still seems unverifiable. Going by the source, this:

Some studies have claimed that genetically modified crops can cause harm,[199][200] but an analysis of such studies concluded that the statistical methodologies were often flawed, and that as a group they do not show evidence of harm or lack of substantial equivalence.[201]

...trying for neutral wording, should read...

Some studies have claimed that genetically modified crops can cause harm,[199][200]; an analysis of six such studies concluded that the statistical methodologies were flawed in the six studies examined.[201]

That is really all the source supports, with some redundancy to balance the association with the "some studies/Domingo/Krimsky" (and if Bonferroni correction is significantly controversial, then that should be mentioned, see the following...). It's still not a good sentence. In fact, the clean, neutral statement would be:

An analysis of six studies that claim that genetically modified crops can cause harm concluded that the statistical methodologies were flawed.[201]

Panchin say quite clearly what the title of their article says. We can argue about the exact amount to which they extrapolate. The title, "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons" is misleading when it refers to just six studies. And there is no explicit extrapolation, what commonality would that even be based on, that they all suggest harm? Please quote where the extrapolation is established. If you can't quote it, then it's not there, it is an original conclusion based on what is there. A paraphrased summary does not arrive at new conclusions that aren't stated in the source.

you are doing OR when you propose that we should conclude that Panchin misused Bonferroni correction. Isn't this the point where, if Bonferroni correction is indeed controversial, we say, "Panchin was published on 14 Jan 2016, less than a month ago, there's no rush, it's reviewing old data, let's wait and see if the method is criticized"? It's not a small, quibbling point.

It's a peer-reviewed review paper in a scientific journal. If you are painting it as ideological, it isn't the source that has a problem with ideology. Fair enough, let's put aside Panchin's "a long-lasting hysteria," and just call it personal opinion. The conclusion is largely based on author's opinion about things not directly addressed by the study's actual work. --Tsavage (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I could argue that "let's wait and see if the method is criticized" should also apply to Krimsky, but I'm not going to change your mind. I could support: An analysis of six studies that claimed that genetically modified crops can cause harm concluded that the statistical methodologies were so flawed that the data actually demonstrated the opposite, and that it is unlikely that there is really any published evidence for harmful health effects. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish: It would be helpful to the discussion if you could point out from the Panchin text how their review of six studies indicates that most or all other suggesting-harm studies are similarly flawed. --Tsavage (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a very important distinction here. As an editor, I'm neutral as to whether or not "their review of six studies indicates that most or all other suggesting-harm studies are similarly flawed". So I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that Panchin says that. Not that they are correct or incorrect, in terms of Absolute Truth^TM. Just that that's what the source says. So here are some quotes where they say it: "We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality." "We argue that the totality of the evidence should be taken into account when drawing conclusion on GMO safety, instead of far-fetched evidence from single studies with a high risk of bias due to a large number of multiple comparisons." They are not saying that they know specifically that the statistics are flawed in studies that they did not analyze. But they are saying that they think that what they found in the six studies can be applied to an overall assessment of the literature. The wording currently on the page reflects that accurately, and really does not go beyond that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

If editors believe this is a useful addition, we should make it clear what Panchin is about, not just summarize it in a few words, without establishing relative weight compared to other papers.

We should acknowledge: The Bonferroni correction is conservative yet justified [6] in such cases as those discussed below because virtually any difference between GMOs and conventional crops is presented as a cause for concern, a large number of tests are carried out without a preplanned hypothesis on what these differences might be and false positive errors have important social consequences. They're apparently applying a controversial method ("criticised as deleterious to sound statistical judgment," per their cited source at [6]^[13]) that is more likely to find no significance, and proposing a justification for that approach.

I am not trying to argue the science, my concern is the use of sources in this article. I would HOPE that what I read here, in Wikipedia's words, is a straightforward, balanced, many-eyes distillation of the sources, and not something that I have to painfully parse on my own. When we're covering scientific opinions, like Panchin and Krimsky, we should present them with enough context to give general readers a reasonable idea of what they're actually about and based on. --Tsavage (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You've been arguing the science quite a bit now. It needs to stop as it's only causing talk page bloat on things that cannot contribute to WP:CONSENSUS. You're trying to call one of the standard methods for accounting for multiple comparisons, a concept in any introductory statistics course, controversial. That's personal peer-review, which has already been mentioned as something we cannot do as editors (otherwise I could easily rip apart Domingo and Krimsky as rubbish). That's especially when it appears this introductory concept is new to you based on your comments.

(Scientist hat on for a minute) Proper accounting of multiple comparisons, power, sample size, etc. is something much more complex when you actually dig into the literature with fluency that casting doubt over a study by vastly oversimplifying multiple corrections as controversial is just plain improper. You'll usually get papers rejected in most disciplines for not accounting for multiple comparisons, and the ongoing discussion on interpreting those adjustments is on properly designing experiments in the first place so you aren't data dredging or have too little statistical power, not that the adjustments themselves are improper. This however, is not the place to discuss that.</hat>

Panchin says what it says, and you cannot engage in original research to make it seem like the paper only focused on the six studies while ignoring their overall conclusions, was only focused on the use of a Bonferonni correction, or even cherrypick Panchin's mention of overemphasizing single primary research studies in an entirely different context. This is part of a consistent string of misrepresenting sources now that needs to stop.

In the end, Tryptofish has it. Panchin is currently accurately reflected in the current text, regardless of your personal critique of the study. We summarize what they said they did and what their overall conclusions were. In this article, we aren't going to go into detailed description of every single study out there, and we aren't going to go into an intro to basic stats on this page. If someone wants that more in-depth information not suited for an article, they can read the paper itself after seeing its conclusions or take a stats course. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: Continuing to argue for scientific consensus wording, bringing in a new load of sources on top of the first 18, seems like the root cause of Talk page bloat atm. You haven't actually addressed my comments. In any case, I've said my piece on this. --Tsavage (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Improved wording for Panchin

From this:

Some studies have claimed that genetically modified crops can cause harm,[199][200] but an analysis of such studies concluded that the statistical methodologies were often flawed, and that as a group they do not show evidence of harm or lack of substantial equivalence.[201]

...to a more descriptive, straightforward, neutrally informative description...

Some studies have claimed that genetically modified crops can cause harm.[199][200] In Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, a 2016 review presents statistical reanalysis of the data from several of these studies, finding that "the data actually provides weak evidence of harm that cannot be differentiated from chance," and that conclusions on GMO safety should be drawn from "the totality of the evidence ... instead of far-fetched evidence from single studies."[201]

Should be as a separate paragraph, with coverage of Domingo and Krimsky (as cited in [199],]200]). --Tsavage (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's an edit. Lfstevens (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Some studies claimed that genetically modified crops can cause harm.[199][200] A 2016 review reanalyzed the data from several prominent studies including Seralini, finding that "the data actually provides weak evidence of harm that cannot be differentiated from chance" and that conclusions on GMO safety should be drawn from "the totality of the evidence ... instead of far-fetched evidence from single studies."[201]

Yes, imo, good edit for readability, and a distinct improvement with mention of Seralini, which gives general readers more high-level context, and better indicates the substance of the Panchin review, while keeping things at a summary level. (Maybe "such" to replace "prominent" for clarity, and, were all of those studies prominent?) Now, to do the same with Dominogo and Krimsky. (For the record, while I think the Panchin concluding argument makes sense as one opinion, the paper itself seems like a designer support piece to assist the pro-biotech case, which if so doesn't make it a bad thing, just an inherently biased one.) --Tsavage (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with Lfstevens' version. Thanks! And that wasn't so hard, was it? It's much better to propose better wording than to try to argue endlessly, as above, about who is "right" in principle. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, the discussion isn't about being "right" in principle, it is about weight of the source. --Tsavage (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The general ideas are good, but let's remember that we don't do unneeded attribution per MOS:QUOTE and save that for things that cannot be said in Wikipedia's voice. We should try to avoid using quotes for higher quality sources like this since we usually just reflect them in Wikipedia's voice. I've seen a lot of insistence of quotes lately, but that is something left typically for much lower quality sources that are only reliable as opinions.

Picking out individual quotes even with the best of intentions can change meaning too. The actual intent of "provides weak evidence of harm that cannot be differentiated from chance" from the abstract is a little ambiguous, whereas the similarly worded second sentence of the conclusions is actually worded a bit stronger. The point constantly driven home in the article is that claims made by the studies are not supported or invalidated due to improper statistical methodology. That's stronger than just weakening the evidence, and the article isn't just about multiple comparisons as the only statistical flaws, so we need to be careful on wording. That's why the broader description in Tryptofish's most recent version lines up better with the source than Lfstevens' first quote. The current version also includes Panchin's synopsis on on evidence of harm and substantial equivalence, which isn't included in Lfstevens proposal.

I do however like the second quote on "totality of evidence . . ." That could even be changed to a summary of the first and second paragraphs of the conclusions (most likely as a followup sentence replacing the quote). I'd have to think about that a bit more though, so I'd be perfectly fine going with that quote for now. So something like, Some studies have claimed that genetically modified crops can cause harm. A 2016 review reanalyzed the data of such studies finding that the statistical methodologies were often flawed, that as a group they do not show evidence of harm or lack of substantial equivalence, and conclusions on GMO safety should be drawn from "the totality of the evidence ... instead of far-fetched evidence from single studies." What do folks think of that? Specific things like Seralini can get mention with respect to Panchin where they are focused on more since we're just doing a broad summary here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I like that version even better. Just a few syntactic adjustments: Some studies have claimed that genetically modified crops can cause harm. A 2016 review that reanalyzed the data of some of these studies found that the statistical methodologies were often flawed, that as a group they do not show evidence of harm or lack of substantial equivalence, and that conclusions about GMO crop safety should be drawn from "the totality of the evidence... instead of far-fetched evidence from single studies." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

that as a group they do not show evidence of harm or lack of substantial equivalence I don't support this version. You've just circled back to giving Panchin far too much weight. They only tenuously connect their six-study reanalysis to all other studies, it's mainly left up to the reader to make the connection, so it is hard to have Wikipedia state that connection directly. And where does substantial equivalence come from, it's not mentioned in Panchin, and it generally refers to a regulatory definition, so using it otherwise seems misleading?

If you want to insist on trying to use Panchin to negate ALL negative GMO findings, then we're back to looking more closely at the strength of the study, looking for citations, reviews, critiques. Negating ALL of a diverse group of studies is an exceptional-sounding claim, so in fact it probably requires multiple sources. --Tsavage (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Tweaks. I think the "they" refers only to the reanalyzed studies, not to the group as a whole. Lfstevens (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Some studies have claimed that genetically modified crops can cause harm. A 2016 review that reanalyzed the data of some of these studies found that their statistical methodologies were flawed, that as a group they do not show evidence neither of harm nor lack of substantial equivalence and that conclusions about GMO crop safety should be drawn from "the totality of the evidence... instead of far-fetched evidence from single studies."

Such a difference a word or two can make - why say something less clearly, when we already had clear wording in the pre-last-Kingofaces43 Lfstevens version?

Panchin make clear what they're trying to support with their six-study review. Let's avoid the OR of nuancing degrees of...extrapolation, as Tryptofish put it, and either say what the study did as far as actual research, or say what conclusion it wants to infer from that research. The latter, that therefore ALL studies are (likely) invalid, is an exceptional claim. The former is that they looked at six studies.

The use of quotes in the previous version is consistent with covering controversial material. Use of the Bonferroni method is controversial, made clear even in the sources Panchin cites: Despite the widespread use of the Bonferroni method, there has been continuing controversy regarding its use. Hence, there are those who believe no correction should ever be made13 and those who consider correction should be mandatory.14,15[14] If you read Panchin, they go so far as to cite "important social consequences" in justifying their choice of analytical tool. Using quotes is a prudent and recommended way to avoid ambiguity with a tricky-enough source. --Tsavage (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You've been warned multiple times to stop your personal peer-review of the paper. It needs to stop, especially when you are personally portraying the article as controversial for a basic method you've indicated you are not familiar with and severely overgeneralizing what the actual dispute is in the literature on multiple comparisons. You've been zeroing in on the words controversial and six studies in that process and cherrypicking as a result of that. As mentioned before, this cannot contribute to WP:CONSENSUS no more than if I tried the same thing in other sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: Please stop framing polite discussion of content as some sort of disruptive action; please stop saying, "it needs to stop," and directly address content and the substance of comments. I AM familiar with Bonferroni correction from attempting to verify our Panchin content in sources. Panchin present reasoning for their choice of Bonferroni, with citations, I read that, and followed to sources, and even to sources within those sources.

Wikipedia relies on plainly evident sourcing, and one thing that is plainly evident in sources is that Bonferroni correction is unquestionably controversial (for example, that statement could be added to Bonferroni correction, solidly sourced). Also plainly evident in the primary source: Panchin reanalyzed six studies. The minimal hypothesis they present to connect the six studies to all the rest is an appeal to common sense extrapolation, based on using the Bonferroni method to find no significance in their sample.

No cherrypicking involved, just a straightforward reading of the source. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology published it as a critical review, but that does not make it a mainstream or widely accepted review.

And a claim that ALL such studies are invalid certainly seems exceptional, and requires multiple sources. Per policy. --Tsavage (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I am willing to step back from having any "extrapolation" in Wikipedia's voice. Please let me suggest: Some studies have claimed that genetically modified crops can cause harm. A 2016 review that reanalyzed the data of some of these studies found that their statistical methodologies were flawed, that they demonstrated neither harm nor lack of substantial equivalence, and that conclusions about GMO crop safety should be drawn from "the totality of the evidence... instead of far-fetched evidence from single studies." --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I maintain that the Lfstevens edit is better, and versions that you, and Kingofaces43, propose, give far too much weight to Panchin. If we're not talking about their tenuous and exceptional claim to invalidate ALL research that suggests GMO effects, then we are just talking about reanalysis of six studies using a controversial method - journal publication doesn't automatically support us repeating whatever a study's authors have to say.

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

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

I hear you about the undesirability of protracted negotiation, and I share your desire to get past it. I do, however, think that you are misunderstanding the sources when you treat Domingo and Krimsky as having greater relative weight and Panchin as having less. Panchin is just as much a peer-reviewed scientific paper as Domingo (not Krimsky), and Panchin is more recent than Domingo. (In fact, it apparently hasn't yet come out in print, only online, which is a simple explanation why there hasn't been much response published yet. And if later reliable sources call Panchin into question, I'll agree readily to giving those greater weight.) Absent other sources evaluating Panchin (and editor opinion about statistical methods does not count), and given Panchin's revision of Domingo's conclusions, it's editorially correct to treat Panchin as better reflecting present-day knowledge. Anyway, I'm willing to go along with any number of proposed wordings. I continue to support what I proposed, I already said that I could support Lfstevens' first proposal, and I can support Lfstevens' second proposal with a bit of copyediting. So I'll go along with any of those, depending on what other editors say. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears we've gone circular again. First, I said we can't give Domingo and Krimsky no weight, i.e. no direct mention. And if we want to use Panchin to negate essentially ALL studies that find potential harm, then that's an exceptional claim, and requires multiple studies to say something similar. If we don't want to make that exceptional claim, then Panchin is a review of only six studies, and that only goes so far.

The fact that their method is mainstream controversial is only more reason for caution, and it is perfectly reasonable to take that into account. We don't simply go, "It's peer-reviewed and its newer, so let's just paraphrase what we want," we do read the source, and if something front and center in the source, like their evaluation method, is controversial, we should take that into account. This is not equivalent to, say, speculative questioning of funding sources, for example, but it seems to be the same sort of consideration as the recent MEDRS issue, where, with a reliably sourced basis, country of origin can call reliability into question. --Tsavage (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I cite Domingo and Krimsky in the sentence I propose for the lead, and I have no objection to citing them in greater detail in the lower section. Beyond that, we are likely to just disagree about how the science works. So, bottom line: I'll go along with any of those three versions that I just listed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

disagree about how the science works If I've made fundamental errors in my reasoning above, please inform me. I don't want to waste anyone's time, least of all, my own, with badly informed discussion.

I acknowledge your support for any of the three versions, including Lfstevens. My request is simply out of interest and for future use. --Tsavage (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much. I guess there's a lot that I could potentially try to explain, but I think the point that I care the most about is the following. Panchin says that they use a particular statistical method that they chose for specific reasons. It's a peer-reviewed reliable source in a scholarly journal. You have pointed out another source, that says that this same statistical method has significant limitations in many circumstances. But that source does not discuss the Panchin study by name, and I don't think that source says that the statistical method is never valid. You seem to be asking us to conclude that the statistical method is inappropriate for the specific use that Panchin made of it. Therefore, it seems to me that you are asking that editors set aside Panchin's own conclusions and instead determine that the criticisms of the other source should be applied to Panchin's methods. I think that's a textbook example of a WP:SYNTH violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking of possible errors in referring to the science. As for Wikipedia policy, I don't see a problem:

• Panchin use a controversial method to arrive at their results.
• The controversiality is established, and discussed as such, in the general literature.

That's meta information, it requires no editor interpretation of the study itself, no SYNTH. And that suggests that we take into account that Panchin uses a controversial method. That's what I've been saying.

Bigger bottom line, this seems like an awful lot of discussion over how to use a single study that claims, based on a small sample, to negate ALL studies that may suggest unwanted GMO effects. It should be simpler. --Tsavage (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Bottom line is that this is a lot of discussion to dedicate to your own personal WP:OR. You need to stop violating policy in this regard. You're still just glomming onto the word controversial to end up misrepresenting the actual discussion in the literature. Even applications of t-tests and assumptions of normality are "controversial" in statistics, but they are still standard practice and pretty much in the same boat as a standard multiple comparisons correction. This is not the place to get into personal interpretations of experimental design philosophy, so if you still want to have some sort of criticism of Panchin, you need sources directly discussing it in that context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR states 'This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.' There is no policy violation unless OR content ends up in the article page.Dialectric (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

In any case, I can support any of three possible wording choices. And I think that we might as well get back to selecting what we will put on the page, as opposed to discussing meta issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not a meta issue, it speaks directly to sources and verifiability. There's no glomming onto the word controversial to end up misrepresenting the actual discussion in the literature, and that's a pretty serious charge. When you present a study that offers a surprising and sweeping claim, an exceptional claim, editors should verify it carefully, which is what I did. Verifiability is the only policy issue here.

1. Panchin relies on a single method, Bonferroni correction, to negate the results of six studies, and argue that that should negate the results of ALL such (GMO) studies that show significant results, an exceptional claim, that editors want to use to make that point in content.

2. Multiple peer-reviewed sources indicate that the method Panchin use is controversial:

• Despite the widespread use of the Bonferroni method, there has been continuing controversy regarding its use.[15]
• Bonferroni adjustments are, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, deleterious to sound statistical inference.4,5[16]
• A number of procedures have been developed to deal with multiplicity, such as the Bonferroni correction, but there is continuing controversy regarding if and when these procedures should be used.[17]
• Use of the Bonferroni correction is a controversial issue[18]

These are not cherrypicked or quoted out of context, and there are more such sources. What we have is straightforward discovery through verifying by reading the source. It is not our place to speculate on the merits of Panchin's use of Bonferroni, only to note that it is a controversial method that all but assures non-significance.

We should not be arguing at length over something so clear and policy-based as an exceptional claim that is not supported in multiple sources, and that arrives at its results using a controversial method. --Tsavage (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yup, and at this point that's all personal peer-review and opinion, which we don't do even on talk pages per WP:OR and WP:MEDRS. Time to move on. If you want to change what we can and cannot do even if someone is an WP:EXPERT editor, this is not the place to do so. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with KofA, because the fact that a statistical method is described as "controversial" is not the same thing as describing it as "invalid". Unless there is a reliable source saying that Panchin misused the method, we need to move on. And if a source emerges in the future saying that Panchin misused the method, I will be all in favor of changing what the page says. So please: let's see if we can select an improved wording. Again, there are three possible choices that I have said that I can support. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have gone quiet, but we really ought to resolve it. After re-reading the previous comments, I suggest: Some studies have claimed that genetically modified crops can cause harm. A 2016 review that reanalyzed the data of some of these studies found that their statistical methodologies were flawed and did not demonstrate harm or lack of substantial equivalence, and said that conclusions about GMO crop safety should be drawn from "the totality of the evidence... instead of far-fetched evidence from single studies." I'm thinking that we should cite the first sentence to the same six studies that were analyzed by Panchin, and the second sentence to Panchin. I reject the idea that this gives Panchin undue weight, and I think that we need to come to closure on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not read the source yet, so I have no position at this time. But if we are to add that many sentences about Panchin, then it would be undue if we do not permit a similar number of sentences for Domingo and Krimsky each. Do you agree? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I haven't just walked away from this, I have taken a pause. I acknowledge and appreciate that you are engaging in what appears to be an actual content discussion, which is excellent. At this point, though, your proposal still seems far from what seems reasonable, which I've tried to state clearly already. Basically:

Ff we want to include Panchin, we should do so in a proper context, framed by at least a description of Domingo, which contains what I assume considers much of the material Panchin is referring to. Assembling a paragraph summarizing the latest Domingo shouldn't be difficult. And we should not ignore the basis of the Panchin findings, which is using a controversial method. We can't claim a level of summary is required that precludes a certain amount of context, this isn't Twitter.

As it stands, content is already in the article, and your last wording, while more accurate and informative than what is there now, also gives more play to Panchin, without context, in a very brief section that doesn't develop the topic, which adds up to imo undue weight. Still, it's better than what is there now, so I don't have an objection to replacing it - imo as just one editor.

About re-arguing the sources: It has been mentioned here that we don't re-review sources, we just establish their reliability and use them. This is a simplistic view. The reliability of a source is a function of what it is specifically supporting, not the other way round, so it is necessary to examine and understand the source sufficiently to come to some conclusion for the intended use. When Panchin proposes to negate findings based on new analysis, of course we must examine and understand the nature of that analysis, and if it turns out that the methods and reasoning are questionable (based strictly on other sources0, of course that comes into play in determining reliability. We don't just say, it's in a peer-reviewed journal so it's fine, that's a starting point, we also need to understand what we're incorporating, for example, Panchin describe their method as "conservative yet justified." There's no OR in vetting a source. (At the moment, I don't have the links to a letter by Panchin to the publishing journal about one of the studies they review in this paper, and the reply from the study authors, both letters published in that journal, which illustrates the review method problem I've been mentioning - you can easily find it if you're interested.) --Tsavage (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm good with Trypto's text as it's mostly just a slight tweak from my original edit, though I have preference for keeping the two clauses linked rather than separate sentences. We do need to be careful about encouraging standalone use of sources like Domingo and Krimksy. I went ahead and added it in as I can assume others would agree this is an improvement over our current status quo version. If not, we can go back to the text that's been in the article for about a month now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes in the text, as noted in the edit summary. Let's not overstate things. "Some" studies is accurately, six studies, let's say that. In particular, the study did not say it concluded anything about substantial equivalence, the clearest finding statement reads, "we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm." --Tsavage (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with the wording as it is after Tsavage's revision. Because Panchin is a response to such earlier sources as Domingo, I believe the weight is balanced correctly. If there is a subsequent response to Panchin in the form of a letter to the journal, I would welcome seeing a link to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI, substantial equivalence is mentioned in the first paragraph of the conclusion: "The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs." Sunrise (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"Despite their claims" is ambiguous - were the results refuted, or not, if so, it's not "despite," it's "falsely claimed." Panchin are editorializing, which is up to them in their conclusion, but we aren't bound to echo that. Extending our coverage to include substantial equivalency gives more weight to the "extrapolation" towards that "all" harm studies are false, which becomes an exceptional claim and requires multiple sources.

And we haven't given time see how the study is received. At least one of Panchin's findings was challenged by the study authors in a journal-published Response to Panchin's Letter on Statistics. From what I can gather, Panchin seem to gone further than simply apply missing correction as the study seems to indicate; the authors say, The multiple comparisons problem was considered and corrected when we analyzed the data in Table 2 and Table 3. Table 2 and 3 were considered as two separate tables, and thus were submitted to statistical analysis respectively ... Correct me if I'm wrong.

In any case, exceptional claims seems to apply here if we're going to give more weight to the finding. We have included the opinion that the preponderance of evidence should be considered rather than single studies (a common, reasonable argument, now with something to cite it to), how much further do you suggest we go based on Panchin? --Tsavage (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I actually wasn't making any suggestions in that comment - I was just pointing out that your claim that substantial equivalence was "not mentioned" in the source is incorrect. "Despite their claims" is pretty clear to me - it refers to the claims made in the six studies they reviewed, and draws a contrast between the claims and the evidence presented for them. I don't think we're in a position to decide that this particular statement about the studies they reviewed is "editorializing," while other related statements are actual conclusions.

For the Xu letter, I'd have to read it carefully, but it's not about Panchin having done extra analysis beyond the correction. It looks like they're arguing their study should be "counted" as two separate studies, each with only half as many comparisons...Regardless, I'd point out that they agree with Panchin on GMO safety ("are safe for human beings," etc), so I don't think it would be appropriate to use it as a rebuttal or counterpoint for the specific statement about safety that we're citing. Sunrise (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I read the letter-to-the-editor in response to Panchin, and I don't think that it indicates any reason to change what is currently on the page. The authors of the letter were the authors of a study of gut microbes after animals ate GM foods. The quote above about Tables 2 and 3 doesn't dispute Panchin so much as justify why the authors think that their data in those tables is still ok. But they go on to say: "However, it's a “complex effect” as we don't know these effects are beneficial or harmful." and "In fact, we believe that GMO are safe for human beings," and also "If professor Panchin is concerned about the statistics problem of this article, we believe the Bonferroni correction strategy of this article (respective Bonferroni correction for each separate table) is a compromised and suitable one." They are not really disputing Panchin's view of the statistics, and they certainly are not saying anything that should change what we currently say about Panchin on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting any changes to the existing text either, so I'll keep my reply to that! --Tsavage (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Domingo and Krimsky

• I have not yet reviewed Pachin, but I have reviewed both Domingo (2011) and Krimsky. The beginning of the sentence "Some studies have claimed that genetically modified crops can cause harm,[199][200]" is not an accurate NPOV description/summary of what those reviews say. I was shocked to see the footnote references added to this existing for this sentence where the material in the reviews did not support the material in the sentencewhere the material was added. A more accurate description of what Domingo talks about can be found in the Abstract:

The number of citations found in databases (PubMed and Scopus) has dramatically increased since 2006. However, new information on products such as potatoes, cucumber, peas or tomatoes, among others was not available. Corn/maize, rice, and soybeans were included in the present review. An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants.

Krimsky says:

I found twenty-six animal feeding studies that have shown adverse effects or animal health uncertainties.

I see a big difference between saying studies "raise still serious concerns" vs. saying GMOs "can cause harm". This is typical of the misrepresentation of Seralini's study which never claimed that GMO corn causes cancer--Seralini instead said the finding were of concern and pointed to the need for long term cancer studies. These studies typically say there is insufficient study and too much of the studies are from industry. In Krimsky:

David Schubert, professor at the Salk Institute, summarized the state of affairs of the GMO controversy as follows: ‘‘To me, the only reasonable solution is to require that all GM plant products be tested for long-term toxicity and carcinogenicity before being brought to market’’ (2002, 969). Until the twenty-six studies, or at least the best of them, are replicated and shown to be false positives, we have an obligation to treat these studies with respect and concern.

* * *

It has been well established in social science research that in some fields there is a funding effect in science from corporate sponsorship of research. That means that corporate-funded science tends to produce results that are consistent with corporate financial interests.

I frequently see statements like these even from those who support the "scientific consensus" (e.g. the AMA [19]), and yet that is not what our articles say about the science. We need to report what is in the WP:RS rather than this black/white causes harm or does not cause harm. It seems some editors prefer to write what they think the RS says and then look for RS to back it up. It should be the other way around. Because of that, I often find sentences that look like PR that is twisting material to suggest conclusions that are not at all in the RS, just as Petrchan47 pointed out above. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've read your comment a couple of times, and I'm confused as to which footnote you mean when you say "I was shocked to see the footnote references added to this existing sentence..." Which footnote is that? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. I thought the sentence "Some studies have claimed that genetically modified crops can cause harm" was there and the footnotes were added to it. I am almost sure I have seen it in the article before, but the diff indicates the sentence and the footnote appeared at the same time. Hence I have corrected my statement above. Sorry for the confusion. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! No problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Domingo does not really say that there are studies showing harm, so much as describing the ways in which Domingo felt that the literature was not yet complete. And I have wondered why some editors have seemed so eager to cite Domingo as a source "against" the scientific consensus.--Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

How can something be declared safe if it has not yet been adequately/fully studied/tested? --David Tornheim (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that Domingo actually declares GMOs safe, which is why I favor citing that source along with Krimsky as representing a view that to some extent disagrees with the sources that say that there is a "scientific consensus". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

What does "adequately/fully studied/tested" mean? They do safety testing, e.g., for allergenicity and have cancelled products based on the results. GM Salmon were "studied" for 17 years before gaining approval. Is that enough? How much is enough (according to an RS)? Aren't they tested adequately according to consensus science? Lfstevens (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Krimsky, on the other hand, does clearly say very explicitly that sources such as Seralini should, in Krimksy's opinion, be treated as serious science. And I looked at that Huff Post piece about the AMA, and I'm not seeing the AMA saying anything there about corporate interest. What they do say is what all the mainstream sources say about "case-by-case" testing. The piece also cites advocacy groups that criticize the FDA for not requiring such testing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I did not notice any mention of the corporate interest issue by the AMA, but they clearly called for pre-market testing in the Huffington post [20] and Chicago Tribune [21] articles. That is what I was referring to above. In other words, the AMA is echoing both Krismky and Domingo saying there is insufficient study/testing. And I do bring this up again here. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(Just noting that you divided my post above into two parts for purposes of replying.) I think there is an important distinction to make. Krimsky says that he thinks the scientific evidence actually demonstrates that GMOs are not safe. Domingo does not conclude that, but says that there wasn't enough testing to establish a scientific consensus that GMOs are safe. The AMA, in contrast, agrees with a bunch of other sources that testing must include case-by-case testing that occurs pre-market, but they explicitly agree with other sources that there is a scientific consensus about existing GM foods. To portray the AMA as taking the position that there is not enough science to justify the safety of existing GM foods seriously misrepresents what that source says. They insist instead that case-by-case testing must continue, which is entirely in accordance with the WHO and many other mainstream sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not say "the AMA as taking the position that there is not enough science to justify the safety of existing GM foods", but you can look at what the Chicago Tribute reported:

The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA's meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.

It seems hard to conclude that the AMA feels the current requirements of pre-market testing are sufficient. So, I'm not really clear on what exactly you think I am misrepresenting. Are you interpreting it to say that they think the current system is fine as it is and has plenty of required testing to ensure food safety? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

If we have 1700+ safety studies, isn't it reasonable/likely that 5% (85+) of those that show statistical significance at the 95% confidence level are simply random (both pro and con)? And given the above reanalysis, don't we have to reject the conclusions of some of the con studies (and possibly pro studies, too) based on their demonstrably poor methodology? (I'm asking for more sources who address these matters.) Lfstevens (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a bit of a misunderstanding (though common) on how stats work, but I won't get into that here. The short of it is that studies not showing an effect don't fall into that 95% error rate. It's only those that claim statistical significance that matter for that. Panchin describes that a little bit in why they only needed to analyze significant studies if you're wondering. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Lfstevens (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

At this point, it is getting difficult to see what the objection was to how Domingo and the AMA are described on the page, but I guess it comes down to the fact that the AMA, on the one hand, agrees with the scientific consensus that existing GM foods are no more dangerous than conventional foods – but on the other hand, the AMA is in favor of legally required testing instead of voluntary testing. But there is a difference between scientific conclusions, and opinions about law. To my knowledge, nothing on the page says that the scientific consensus is that legislation about testing is sufficient. But there is no problem with the fact that the scientific consensus is that the testing that has actually occurred is sufficient to establish the safety of the crops that exist up to now. There is nothing illogical about saying, in effect, we scientists think the testing that has occurred has been fine, but we caution against abandoning that testing in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I made the objection at the top and it is just as correct as it was when I first articulated it (with the slight revision). The AMA is just one more example along these lines. The sentence I pointed out does not articulately accurately and summarize the concerns raised in the articles or by the AMA. This sentence is in the body under "controversy" not as part of any "scientific agreement" or "scientific consensus". I will try a WP:BRD that is more true to what these articles are saying. My problem is this black/white thinking of either "shows harm" or shows "no harm": Krimsky and Domingo say it is gray, which is what Seralini was saying as well, and they suggest a need for more study per the Precautionary Principle. The AMA is saying IMHO that there is no KNOWN harm from GMO, that being a GMO does not inherently make it more dangerous than ordinary food, so therefore why label it? But that there is potential for harm for reasons and mechanisms unknown, which is why it needs to be tested, which is not required, unlike in Europe where it is tested the way artificial additives are in the U.S. And Seralini is saying that even the required testing in Europe is insufficient because the studies are all 90-days feeding trials by the companies who keep the data confidential. and he thinks they should be at least 2 years. So a sentence like the above just does not show what the authors are saying. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just missing something, which is certainly possible, so I'll wait and see what you present. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sentence on Regulations by Country

Above Tryptofish and Kingofaces43 say that the last sentence of Tryptofish's revised 1st proposal could be added now. That sentence specifically is:

The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.

Citations

I agree. Is there any objection to adding this sentence as proposed above to GM articles where the "scientific agreement" on GM safety sentence is now found? --David Tornheim (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy that we appear to have consensus about this! Obviously, I'm in favor of the sentence, but I have a purely procedural objection to adding it now. Because of the planned RfC to evaluate the (currently three) proposed versions of the language for which there is not yet consensus, it will be necessary to compare and contrast Proposals 1 and 2. Proposal 2 says something about regulation that contradicts what the sentence here says, and I feel that it is necessary for RfC participants to be able to see the regulation language in both proposals, side-by-side. There is no hurry about this, so let's please wait until after the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I will wait. By proposal 2, do you mean "Proposal 2 revised" or "Proposal 2"? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant revised, because it's the most recent version of it (there's another sort-of-version in the original Prop 2 section, but it was never completed). By the way, I'm simply numbering these things in the order in which they were submitted, no implied value judgment. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Proposal 2 revised does not contradict the above. (Proposal 2 (unsourced) did, and it was wrong for doing so.) If you think it does contradict the above sentence, please explain how. @Tsavage: Do you think the above sentence in anyway contradicts Proposal 2 revised? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

My reason for saying that is at the bottom of #Second proposal revised. Although it does say "where available", it makes it sound like there is a "consensus" among national regulatory agencies that GMOs are safe, and I don't think that that kind of consensus exists. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Right, I just noticed your concern and was about to strike the above. I will respond up there. I have somewhat similar concerns about the language. I'll explain up there. I don't think the language from the WHO ("GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health.") which is where the language for Proposal 2 revised originated contradicts your sentence above, except by omission. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, for the record the material in the above sentence should have been in our articles for some time (years). The absence of that very basic material (also observed by Tsavage and others) is one of the major reasons why I have alleged our GM article are not WP:NPOV, since I first looked at them. They have improved somewhat since ArbCom, but this kind of missing information is still a problem. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that governmental positions should indeed be adequately covered on these pages. At the same time, I want to be precise about the differences between the positions taken by governments and the positions taken by scientists, which are two different things entirely. (Just look at how the current majority party in the US Congress regards evolution and climate change!) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that science and government positions should be distinguished for exactly the reasons you give above. I should point out that under WP:MEDRS the WHO is listed as a "scientific organization", but I consider it to be more like a government organization similar to the FDA but on a global level (our article describes it as a "specialized agency of the United Nations"). --David Tornheim (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason why the diversity of regulatory stances is not covered is because it's very difficult to do so from a weight perspective. A number of government organizations adopt WP:FRINGE views on this topic that run counter to the scientific community consensus. Anti-gmo activists consistently try to claim there isn't consensus because X number of countries "ban" GMOs or try to allude to such things by constantly trying to insert that into conversation. Because of all that, having minimal content here on regulation is part feature, not flaw, and also partially just something nuanced that can't easily be worked in yet given the atmosphere here in this topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Re ping from above. Perhaps "respective" is not clear enough in context. More explicit is something like: Genetically modified foods, in countries where they are approved, have been assessed for safety by the respective national regulatory agencies, and determined to be as safe to eat as conventional food. That also changes "available" to "approved"—apparently around 60 countries regulate cultivation and importation of GM food, so strictly speaking, GM foods may be available as imports in countries with no regulation. I'll revise and re-post. --Tsavage (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I will express my concern about that language in a second above. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)