Talk:Genetically modified food controversies

Apparently no such 'broad consensus' about GM food safety

I wish to challenge the blanket assertion in the intro and body text, seemingly based upon synthesis and/or misreading of sources. The lead section states "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]" And the section entitled health has this line starting the second paragraph: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops is safe to eat.[3][5][30][31]" However, in reviewing those references I see no mention of broad consensus for GM food safety -- and those two statements are not actually equivalent -- "no greater risk" is not the same as "safe to eat"... Using wikipedia's editorial voice like that seems to misrepresent the sources. In fact, the second source (W.H.O.) [1] even says, "it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." Though they go on to say GM foods are "not likely to present risks for human health" that is not the same as saying they are safe, but rather they need more testing. Where are the sources supporting the supposed 'broad consensus'? Please note, I started to include this as a new subsection in the previous thread, but thought better of it, since that got bogged down by TLDR issues from the OP. El duderino ^(abides) 06:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you on the point about "derived from GM crops is safe to eat". I will change that one at so it reflects the more accurate "no greater risk than conventional food". I don't think it is saying that it needs more testing, more that no matter how much testing you do (of anything) it can never be shown to be 100% safe. Scientists seldom speak in absolutes. Also I don't think it is possible to make general safety statements on all GM foods as they are all different. AIRcorn (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep that is a good catch. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) yes i did! Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

El duderino, I added another source to support the statement. Here are some of the sources currently in the article. I would say they are being accurately represented:

"There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." [2]

"Despite scientific consensus that genetically modified foods on the market are as safe as conventional foods, some consumers remain leery and efforts have been mounted to force special labels." [3]

"As the journal Nature editorialized in 1992, a broad scientific consensus holds that ‘the same physical and biological laws govern the response of organisms modified by modern molecular and cellular methods and those produced by classical methods. ...[Therefore] no conceptual distinction exists between genetic modification of plants and microorganisms by classical methods or by molecular techniques that modify DNA and transfer genes."[4]

BlackHades (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for picking up on the things I had above. Black Hades, you can add all ther sources you like, but there is no scientific consensus. I agree with people above that more testing it needed no doubt, but from the research we have there isn't a "broad consensus" but rather conflicting views. That one Yahoo! article you cite is not reliable either. The current article does not reflect this. If it is not changed, then I will edit it again, balancing it out with the sources I found on the subject. Otherwise, this page is taking a side in the debate over GMOs, when the wikipedia policy professly does not allow this to be the case. I do not want an edit war going on here, but rather a slight change in the wording of the article to reflect the reality.Historyday01 (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you are trying to rebut secondary sources with your personal beliefs. We defer to secondary sources here, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

History, first it's an AP article not Yahoo. The same article is printed across thousands of other news sources. Second, the article is being used as a secondary source to confirm what other primary and secondary sources are already stating. Even if we were to hypothetically remove this source, it doesn't change anything as there are more than enough other sources to confirm the text in question. You've yet to provide any WP:RS to state the contrary. Neither you, nor anyone else, have yet to provide an WP:RS that either states that "there is no consensus on the issue regarding safety of GM food" or "GM food is more dangerous than conventional food". We're only allowed to state what WP:reliable sources state. If you can't find any WP:RS to make these statements, then we have to go by the WP:RS that we already have which is that "there is broad consensus that GM food pose no greater risk than conventional food". BlackHades (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't expect a journal entitled Genetics to give an unbiased view on genetically engineered foods. In fact, this whole debate about the mainstream science is based upon the wrong science. Why are we unconditionally relying on reports from bio-tech, genetics and their associated industries when these are matters of health science? El duderino ^(abides) 05:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature."---American Medical Association

"GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved."--World Health Organization

"Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects"--Key, Suzie, Julian KC Ma, and Pascal MW Drake. "Genetically modified plants and human health." Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 101.6 (2008): 290-298.

BlackHades (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Your selective quotes prove my earlier points. Whether or not the AMA or WHO actually said those (how should we know without links? your blue boxes don't give them extra credibility, in fact they're beginning to seem obnoxious), those are not accurate summaries of either organization's stance on GMOs today. The AMA says there needs to be more testing [5], as does WHO. Neither says they're safe. El duderino ^(abides) 11:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Um...the links are in the references in the article. Did you even bother looking through any of them? BlackHades (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, but I dont have them memorized and I believe it's common TPG courtesy to provide links with quotes, particularly helpful to those of us on mobile devices. But thanks for the snark which, as with IRWolfie's jabs, sure adds to the cooperative spirit eh? Yea, I guess you'd rather spend your time on fancy formatting.. I note that you didn't respond to the more important point on your misrepresentation of the AMA and WHO. El duderino ^(abides) 06:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither AMA or WHO is misrepresented. Here's a copy of AMA's report if you'd like to read it.[6] BlackHades (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

el duderino, let me add to this. This goes back to your characterization of the consensus as "GMOs are safe" which nobody says. Not even the most vociferous advocate of GMOs would say "GMOs are safe" because 1) it easy to imagine a GMO that would be very dangerous if used in certain ways, and this broad statement brings in all GMOs, real and imagined, used in any way imaginable; and 2) with respect to real GMOs that are used in the food supply... there is always some risk of toxicity for everything. I hope you get that. (Nothing in this world is 100% safe. Nothing. Staying in your bed all day to avoid risk is dangerous as you will not get exercise. Water is toxic, if you drink too much or drown in it.) If you get that there is risk in everything, then I hope you can see that everybody, on both sides of the debate on GMOs (heck, with respect to any new technology that is brought to market), always wants more and better testing done, to better understand and quantify the risks in the new product. So yes, it is absolutely logical for someone at the same time to say "currently marketed food from GMOs is as safe as (or as risky as) food from conventional organisms" AND also say at the same time, "more and better testing would be a great thing." Especially in the field of GMOs, where there is so much fear out there, the more valid testing that is done, the better. The more we are able to apply new analytical technology as it emerges, the better. I hope you can see how the two things are not at all contradictory. And please note that saying "more testing would be great" is yet again a different thing from saying "regulations should require more testing prior to approving new GMOs intended for use in the food chain." Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The conclusion of the June 2012 AMA statement on labeling, with emphasis added: "Despite strong consumer interest in mandatory labeling of bioengineered foods, the FDA’s science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The Council supports this science-based approach, and believes that thorough pre-market safety assessment and the FDA’s requirement that any material difference between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts be disclosed in labeling, are effective in ensuring the safety of bioengineered food. To better characterize the potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that premarket safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement. The Council notes that consumers wishing to choose foods without bioengineered ingredients may do so by purchasing those that are labeled “USDA Organic.” " In other words, the AMA still holds that currently-marketed food from GMOs is as safe/risky as their conventional counterparts. It is also true that going forward, the AMA proposes mandatory pre-market testing, which is a change from their prior support for the current voluntary premarket testing regime. In the real world this is not a big change, since as they note "To date, all manufacturers of bioengineered foods intended for marketing have engaged in the voluntary notification process." (page 6, lines 23-24) Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You don't think a scientific journal dedicated to studying genetics is reliable for statements about genetics because it has genetics in the title? No matter what source is presented you will reject it because you have a preconceived notion and appear unwilling to change in the face of evidence, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Apparently your entrenched attitude here has clouded your understanding of what I wrote, to the point of making a personal projection bordering on attack. I'm beginning to see why others accuse you of ownership issues and pro-GMO editorial bias. If that's not true, then perhaps you could try re-reading. How exactly are geneticists qualified to be experts on the health safety of GMOs? El duderino ^(abides) 11:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC) fwiw, i was in the middle of adding the first sentence to this comment when irwolfie's following edit conflicted.

Stop with the vague insinuations, you are trying to poison the well. I'll state the blindly obvious here. Geneticists know about genetics, that would include the consensus position about their safety. You don't like what they have said, so you try to dismiss them as the "wrong science", whatever that means, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Then try to contain your scorn and condescension & at least pretend you have a collaborative interest here. It may be obvious to you but we can't all be experts. What source do you have to support your conclusion about geneticists and their expert knowledge of safety? El duderino ^(abides) 11:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

El Duderino, in some ways I am sympathetic to your position. I actually think that WP:MEDRS should be amended to specify that content about toxicity should only sourced on reviews done by professional toxicologists. (There are way too many primary studies done by non-toxicologists that give nonsense results (e.g. a basic neuroscience researcher dumps a bunch of roundup on some neurons and kills them, and then publishes the results claiming that they show that roundup is toxic to humans) and then reviews that are done by non-toxicologists end up incorporating crap like that. Which in my view is shameful.) HOWEVER, Wolfie is right, in that as far as I know, there is no basis in policy (WP:RS) nor in the WP:MEDRS guideline for excluding content from the journal Genetics from being used as a source. If you have a basis for making such an exclusion in a policy or a guideline, please state that basis. If you have no basis in policy or guideline, then please say so, and give up this line of argument. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wolfie and el duderino - this is an intense conversation but personalizing it is not going to help us get anywhere. Please step back and take a breather, and keep the conversation focused on the content of this article, relevant sources, and policy/guidelines, and leave aside your feelings and judgments about each other. Please. WP:CIVILITY is really important to me and I want to keep editing on this page too. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts at mediation and balance. If the others want to stop dismissing, patronizing, etc, I would appreciate that too and, again, respond in kind. El duderino ^(abides) 07:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15718213 Mice have shown structural changes in their testes. Why no mention of this study? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsnyder1994 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at their discussion: "The cause(s) of the observed alterations cannot be conclusively established, at this stage of the research. However, since the GM soybean used in the present investigation was glyphosate-resistant and was consequently treated in the field with such a herbicide, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the effects observed may be due to the herbicide residues. Consistent with this ..." Trying to interpret a primary source like this which puts forward a tentative hypothesis is not something we do on wikipedia. See WP:PRIMARY. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to add my voice to those who do not see a consensus among scientists that GE or GM foods are safe. I have been reading heavily on this subject for some months. I am new to editing and to the discussion, and will have to go over my material to see whether I have any good sites as have been requested. I will say for now, that the industry is policing itself, and has not put forth the money for adequate independent studies. For them to say that problems have not been shown is therefore misleading. I propose that we return to something resembling the original version of the first section this page, if you will scroll down through the history. To save you time, I copy it here:

"Although no major health hazards have come to light since GM food was introduced 12 years ago, and close to 150 studies are published to attest their safety[1], consumer rights groups such as the Organic Consumers Association[2] and Greenpeace[3] emphasise the long term health risks which GM could pose, or that the risks of GM have not yet been adequately investigated."

I would also change the reference to who is expressing concern...it is far more than consumer rights groups and Greenpeace, etc. "Opponents" might suffice.Catrinka Trabont (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are some web sites which should challenge this consensus idea: [7] [8] [9] [10] There is also the Puztai Affair, mentioned on the page, and the other affair, [11], also on the page. These begin to show the suppression of information which is why we are having this trouble. I propose that the sentence in dispute should be changed, and not use the word consensus. The entry under Genetic Engineering also needs to lose this phrase. There are other issues on the page which deserve attention, and clearly there is no consensus among the editors that this phrase belongs in an encyclopedia. The claim about human health also needs alteration.Catrinka Trabont (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

None of these sources would qualify as reliable sources. AAEM is a fraudulent medical group listed under Quackwatch. Both Puztai and Seralini are studies that are highly discredited in the scientific fields. When you have major mainstream scientific and medical organizations such as AAAS, NAS, WHO, AMA, etc supporting the "broad scientific consensus" statement, you need an equally relevant source to counter the statement. BlackHades (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thanks, I was wondering if anyone was going to give me feedback at all! So, Puztai is a good example of the contraversy. He was discredited, then vindicated, so if you cut the story off 3/4 of the way, he is unreliable. I notice this is how the pro side likes to do it. Perhaps you will care to actually respond to the end of his story, as told in the WP entry. But let's say we leave him out for now. Seralini I am less familiar with, although I enjoyed the tussle over him in at the end of this [12].

While Quackwatch hardly equals the relevancy of WHO, let's for the moment accept their critique of AAEM, but do try AAEM's link to WHO, [13], (I quote) "With GM foods most national authorities consider that specific assessments are necessary. Specific systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human health and the environment. Similar evaluations are generally not performed for traditional foods. Hence there is a significant difference in the evaluation process prior to marketing for these two groups of food." There goes your consensus on substantial equivalency, no?

You have not mentioned Antiniou. Phd, et al. [14] Here is a better link: [15] I particularly hoped that they would be acceptable. Also, the many sources cited in the Institute for Responsible Technology. These are scientific studies, and the number of scientists I have now come up with should be sufficient to challenge this statement of consensus, no?

It is very clear to me that this statement of consensus makes the page biased in favor of GM foods. It is equally clear to me why this battle in the talk page is so "to the death". The world is watching this page, and as long as they see this statement about scientific consensus, equivalency, and safety, those who do not know better will go to bed happy. I think the rest of the page is good, and I think that those who do not agree with the statement deserve a hearing and the respect which a different wording would provide.

Here is my proposed replacement: "While supporters of GM foods point to a widespread agreement among scientists that GM foods are safe and substantially equivalent to their food counterparts (keeping the references), GM opponents include scientists who emphasize that risks of GM have not yet been adequately investigated.( adding any of my references which pass muster and any others)" I would also remove the reference to Greenpeace etc. as opponents unless we add Monsanto and Syngenta as supporters.Catrinka Trabont (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be constant confusion what the scientific consensus is on exactly. The statement doesn't say "there is broad scientific consensus that GM food is safe" the statement in the article says "there is broad scientific consensus that GM food on the market pose no greater risk than conventional food." There's a very big difference between the two and the WHO statement, as well as others, supports the latter.

Regarding American Academy of Environmental Medicine, this is a organization listed under Quackwatch as a fraudulent medical group. They are not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties. The members are widely known to promote discredited medical treatments such as homeopathy and naturopathy. In short, it's not a real medical group.

In regards to Earth Open Source. This is not a scientific organization. Also "broad consensus" does not mean every single scientist accepts a position. There are scientists that deny evolution and that deny anthropogenic global warming but that doesn't change the fact that both have broad scientific consensus support. WP:VALID states not all minority or extraordinary claim needs to be presented, particularly ones that would be deemed WP:FRINGE. Please review the list of sources cited for the "broad scientific consensus" statement and look for similar equivalent sources to counter them. BlackHades (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I did some concept scrambling there about the consensus statement, and I apologize. I have reviewed some of the material in the source list, and it is very interesting and informative. I still think that the consensus statement is misleading, as do many other editors, I observe. The statement which I made, "consensus that GM food is safe") see above for the complete suggestion) was my own suggested substitution, and as you point out, should include the words, "on the market".

Earth Open Source is the publisher, not the author(s). Two of the authors of this piece have PhDs.

I completely understand and agree that consensus does not mean every single scientist accepts the position, and that to challenge it, one needs to come up with some statistically significant number of legitimate scientists who disagree. I believe that number exists, and part of why it is small is that scientists have been silenced, far beyond what can be explained by the need to avoid public paranoia. (You have not commented on all of my last post.)

The European commission report is about testing, and I only found two among the tests they cited which referred to testing of humans. On human health findings, which is the second sentence on the page I want to replace, I think this is a misleading statement since so little has been done in the way of long term human health research.Catrinka Trabont (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be mixing everything together. The consensus about safety, and the existence of long term health research on humans are different questions. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

My suggested change did mix them together; it made a different statement than the last version. Human safety, after all, is what the controversy is about. But thanks for the feedback...I will work to be more clear. I withdraw my suggested change, and propose a simpler one. The opening section in the page is a good summary of the two positions in the GM food controversy, except for the second paragraph which is under discussion here. I propose that it simply be removed, because it is biased.

Here is what I want to remove: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food."

At first inspection, this appears to be an unbiased, fair statement of facts. Most of the references for the first sentence do support the claim of scientific consensus, as most of them contain almost a cooky cutter image of the same statement. Some do not cite research to support the claim, but this won't matter if they are removed from that context. However, authors Vandana Shiva [16], Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber, [17], and Jeffrey Smith [18] have chronicled the suppression of information which would be critical of GM food, citing the influence of big corporations and the silencing of scientists. They also point to the close relationship between regulating agencies and GM corporations, including a sort of revolving door in the top ranks. Rampton, Stauber, and Smith's work is extensively footnoted, with statements and research from numerous scientists. Shiva herself holds extensive credentials and awards. These authors have pages on Wikipedia, and the Arpad Pazti story, also on Wikipedia, is in both the Stauber book and the Smith book as examples of how a scientist is treated if his results disagree with the corporation. (In other words, far beyond what would be explained by, say, if his research was flawed.)

These authors would also find the second sentence misleading, that no reports of ill effects have been documented, etc. Among other objections, they point out that there has been almost no testing of humans for ill effect.

These views are not explained in the paragraph at issue, and therefore it is biased, and should be removed. The intro. section looks fine without it. I will wait for feedback before making this change. Please be specific if you have feedback.Catrinka Trabont (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Support this change, for reasons explained in detail here. groupuscule (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just as a brief note, the existence of dissent does not imply a lack of consensus. This is especially so when the sources presented are not peer-reviewed - if they contain footnotes to peer-reviewed literature, then the footnotes are the sources that you should be citing here. You will need to make sure that the sources conform to WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, and that they have sufficient WP:WEIGHT to counter the sources already in the lead. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Catrinka, I would strongly advise following my recommendations stated earlier. Review the references for the statements in question, and find similar equivalent sources to counter them. For example, when highly mainstream science and medical organizations are being used to support the statement, find another equivalent highly mainstream science and medical organization to counter it. When mainstream peer review science journals are used, find another equivalent mainstream peer review science journal to counter it. Because what you're trying to use now as sources, isn't going to hold any weight. BlackHades (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Catrinka, the statement about the there being "no reports of ill effects" has nothing to do with human testing. There are examples (too many) of products that have been brought to market, and were later removed because they turned out to be toxic; things like PCBs, asbestos, ephedra. What unfolded in real time, was that "reports of ill effects" in people emerged - one-off case studies (often from individual doctors who treated the patient), which were eventually gathered up in secondary sources, followed by epidemiological studies looking for more such examples (in other words, studies with a hypothesis to test), followed intensive new rounds of new tox studies focused on the hypothesis, followed by removal. The existing sentence that you want to remove accurately states that no reports of ill effects of eating food from GMOs have been documented and refers to the first step of that chain. With regard to the "human testing" that you refer to -- anybody who calls for "human testing of GM food" kind of shows that they don't know much about toxicity testing in the real world. Sorry I don't mean to be harsh, but please let me me explain. Nobody has done a drug-like clinical trial of eating GM food, because this is scientifically untractable and is unethical. Untractable first. Two problems with the science of a clinical trial on GM food. First, the issue of the intervention itself -- in a randomized clinical trial for a drug, the study drug is a very well characterized, single chemical; we know exactly what we are giving, and we know that nobody in the control arm is getting it. We have a very good "intervention" vs "no intervention" control. With GM food, what exactly are you testing - are you giving the exact same substance to everyone in the study arm, and are you sure that none of the people in the control arm are getting anything that is in "study substance"? Please really think about that (imagine real people in a real clinical trial) and you will see the answer is no. Right away that makes the experiment very problematic and difficult-to-impossible to draw strong conclusions from (which would be the goal of spending the money and time to do the trial -- to get results you can draw strong conclusions from). Secondly, is the issue of hypothesis - what you are looking for. In a Phase III trial of a drug, you give the drug to sick people, and give placebo to sick people, and you pre-define what you are looking for on the "good" side as well as the "bad" side (in other words, you have a hypothesis of efficacy and hypotheses of toxicity): a) you look for efficacy of the drug in treating the disease (does it work - does it say, shrink tumors by 50%?); b) toxicity, based on (i) known risks from previous testing and (ii) a standard battery of other things (e.g. you always look at liver function and CV effects). And regulators who look at the results, judge whether the benefit is worth the side effects. (note - no drug is without side effects - nothing is completely "safe") With GM food, with regard to hypothesis, there is no well-defined hypothesis of efficacy that you would look for, because currently marketed GM food has no intended health benefit. Also, there is no well defined hypothesis of toxicity that you would look for. Because of the lack of any hypotheses, and because the intervention itself ("GM food") is so poorly defined, such a clinical trial is untractable. It would be a waste of money. What is left with respect to "human testing"? Well, as I mentioned above, once sporadic reports of ill effects have emerged in the past, these have been followed up by epidemiological studies. In an epidemiological study, you start out with a hypothesis (e.g. asbestos causes mesothelioma). And you go out and survey hundreds of people and ask them a huge battery of questions, and look at their medical records, and see if any clear correlations emerge (lots of them will emerge!). Then you have to think very carefully about whether any of those correlations could reasonably be causation. (famous example: a survey of a large number of college students' health and behaviors finds that a strikingly high number of people who slept with their clothes on, also woke up with headaches. Should we conclude that sleeping with one's clothes on, causes headaches? No. The real underlying link is probably late night drinking) Again, with something as poorly defined as "GM food" and with no hypothesis of toxicity going into the study, it is going to be very hard to come up with anything clear. For example, if a correlation between GM soy (for example) and kidney damaged emerged, is that because of the "GM" part of the soy, or is it, say, from the high concentration of phytoestrogens that soy has? How do you know? So even an epidemiological study is untractable with something as complex as "GM food" which is really different from single substances like ephedra or asbestos, and we currently have no hypothesis of toxicity to test. Now ethics. People who run clinical trials have a very high concern about the ethics of doing any clinical trial - there has to be a good, ethical reason to do the study and it must be possible to draw strong conclusions from it, to justify exposing the subjects to all the trouble they go through. I am going to say the "N" word here - but the ethics of medical experiments on human subjects grew out of horror at the human experimentation that the Nazis did. Doing a clinical trial without a clearly defined study substance that may actually have some health benefit to the subjects, and without clear hypotheses for efficacy and toxicity, such that you can draw strong conclusions from the study, is completely outside the bounds of medical ethics today. Now, summarizing, "human testing" of GM food is probably never going to happen - it is scientifically untractable and it is unethical. Toxicology is based on in vitro work and animal studies. The scientific consensus is, based on the in vitro and in vivo tox studies that have been done, that currently marketed GM food is as safe as/as risky as food from conventional counterparts. And it is true that there have been no reports of health problems arising from exposure to currently marketed GM food (again, think of the early days when case reports were emerging of mesothelioma in people exposed to asbestos). And as Arc wrote above, "scientific consensus" does not mean "unanimity." There are some scientists who, in good faith, reject human-caused global warming. There are some scientists who have axes to grind and who not-in-good-faith, reject human-caused global warming. Both kinds are outside the consensus. Likewise, scientists and others who claim that currently marketed GM food is more toxic than conventional counterparts are way outside the scientific consensus; those who claim there is a strong chance it is more toxic than conventional counterparts are outside the consensus but are at least speaking scientifically - both however lack any solid hypothesis as to why and in what way (where is the asbestos-like evidence?), and both are outside the consensus that currently marketed GM food is as risky as/as safe as food from conventional counterparts. The consensus may change, but so far no tox reports have been published that provide evidence strong enough to change the consensus. That evidence may emerge and the consensus may change. It hasn't yet. Finally, as for the "suppression of science" claim - there is no doubt that studies in this field have become highly politicized; the main reason for this, is that anti-GMO activists have pounced on any study that might show toxicity and have demanded immediate political action banning GM food based on them; this in turn has led other scientists to take a very pro-active stance in immediately showing problems in the design of such studies and emphasizing that conclusions based on them must be taken tentatively; this in turn has led some scientists, like Seralini, to make even wilder and stronger claims and make them even more in the media spotlight. It is just all too human behavior, on both sides, and is indeed ugly. There was a great, even handed article on this published in Nature a few years ago - here it is http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090902/full/461027a.html. You do not need to go to conspiracy theories to explain this. But the bottom line is that no studies have yet been published that provide credible scientific evidence that the consensus is not true or is unlikely to be true. Such studies might be published one day. What I would love to see, is for anti-GMO scientists and pro-GMO scientists to get together, and define a set of experiments that both sides find acceptable in design, and do them together, and analyze them together, ideally funded by a nonprofit and all done transparently (with all discussions and protocols and the experiments themselves recorded and made public) and then publish the results together. This is about the only way I could see to escape the morass of politics. This was a long response but I hope it was helpful, Catrinka. Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. Let me see if I can cover them all:

In bringing in the authors as I did, I was removing myself from the discussion, and acting only as an editor concerned that the discussion was biased to one side. I was saying that these were highly respected people who held opposing views and were supported by credentialed scientists. To the demand that they be as high in world status as the WHO, I say that is ridiculous. They and the scientists they report on have sufficient standing to be credible representatives of the opposition to GM research. No whistleblower is going to have the same standing as the institution she is exposing.

Moreover, what I hoped to present was not so much the research itself, though it does exist, as I pointed out earlier, the authors point out, and Groupuscule has pointed out. What I hoped to present was the existence of foul play murking up the processes of science. This, I feel, accurately represents "one" of the positions of the opponents of GM foods. As this page is about the controversy, I think the statement I want to remove, should it be allowed to stay, ought to say something indicating this objection. It sounds easier to me, to just remove it.

As for the fine article Jytdog has offered to explain why the scientific community is so reactive, I will say this: I have already read this. On the surface, it appears reasonable. However, the extreme way in which Arpad Puztai was treated, being fired, etc., at the very outset of the release of GM food, when he was told that he was to do research to see if it was safe, and when he concluded that, not so much that it was unsafe, though his study had raised concerns, but that more studying should be done. On rats. You really need to familiarize yourself with this story before you go around making statements on the topic. Sorry--I am arguing the issue. But others have been treated in similar fashion. Let me ask you this: have you really examined the examples given, starting with Puztai, thoroughly enough to satisfy yourself that this is not just a case of a powerful industry suppressing its detractors? I have so far seen no facing of the full story of Puztai, from the pro-GM side. They all want to end the story with--the study was inadequate, or discredited, etc. or, most hilarious, that Smith, in whose book [19] was the most well known recounting of the story, is not a scientist!!!

Human studies. Of course human studies are expensive, difficult, and not so far expected on food. I am simply pointing out that the statement on the page referring to no reports of ill effects have been documented, is biased because, while arguably true, and I will accept that it is a true statement, it is misleading. The public assumes that either A), GM foods have been adequately studied for safety before being released, including, should it be necessary, human studies, or B) That the fact that after 20 or so years of being on the market, no deaths or illnesses have been directly linked to GM food consumption, this means we can be very comfortable. Both of these assumptions are challenged by the well supported opposition in the GM debate. As a comparison, I offer the statement from the sugar industry some years back: "Every body needs sugar". True, but misleading.Catrinka Trabont (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

HI Catrinka.

• When you say human studies are "not so far expected" on GM food you don't seem to understand what I wrote. It is extremely unlikely that they will ever be expected by anybody who understands clinical testing. "GM food" is just too complex a substance to do any kind of meaningful testing human on. It makes no sense.
• I am very familiar with the Pusztai affair (please note that his name is spelled with an "s") - no need to make comments about my being unfamiliar with it and other examples. I generally have no truck with conspiracy theories. If you want to go there, that is your business, but conspiracy theories are by definition, fringe. There are generally much more simple and relevant explanations for each event. Pusztai, for example, did quite a bad thing -- making strong and scary public statements, about an issue that the public cares deeply about, based on research he was doing that he had not yet published in a peer-reviewed journal (and that was not even ready to be written up!), which caused a huge ruckus for himself, his institution, and even the Lancet. It is completely unsurprising that he was sacked and that nobody wanted to hire him after that. Universities are pretty universally risk averse; I work at a university and I have seen faculty get pushed out for embarrassing the university. So you don't need a conspiracy to explain what happened to him. The tragedy of Pusztai going public with his preliminary results the way he did, is that he didn't get to complete his studies as he intended, in peace. Who knows what we all could have learned if he hadn't foolishly poured gasoline on a fire.
• If the public assumes that human testing should be done of GM food (and I wonder what evidence you have, for stating that as a fact), I don't know where the public is getting that idea. There is no requirement that any new foods or food ingredients be tested in humans before going to market. Regulators are not saying that GM food should be tested in humans, and scientific societies are not saying that. Companies that make GMOs that are processed to make food are not saying it. I know that I read about the "lack of human testing" all the time in anti-GMO websites and it drives me crazy every time I see it, since it is just so ignorant. So if the public assumes it, if anybody is responsible for that idea, it would be the anti-GMO activists who keep saying it. Which is all outside the scientific consensus statement, in any case.
• The scientific consensus does not say "we should be very comfortable." You are reading that into it. It is a fact that there have been no asbestos/ephedra-like reports of ill effects from GM foods. One can make of that, what one will. Anybody who is aware of the scientific consensus is also aware that no food is 100% safe. Water can kill you, in many different ways. I don't call that telling anybody to be very comfortable. Not sure how you could get there.
• It is ironic that you point out that Smith is not a scientist, but you want to pit his word against the word of the world's most prestigious scientific societies. On the issue of the relative safety of currently marketed GM food, Smith is about as fringe as you can get. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Fortunately, as editors we do not have to decide the debate, only to report on it. After referring to Wikipedia, "No original research",[20], I note that Smith published his own material, so it could only be used if there was no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. I could argue this: Smith is highly respected among opponents of GMOs, and his books have been around long enough (2003, 2007) for the actual studies in them to be roundly disposed of, if they were wrong or invented.

After examining the criticisms of Smith long before I joined this conversation, I concluded that nobody I could find had challenged any of what I thought was his pivotal material among the research he reports on, except for the history of Pusztai's research (see below). Everyone was looking at Smith's history in yoga, the minor studies he reports against GM, and so forth, and spending a lot of time defending trivial issues, all from perfectly respectable scientific bases. All of this led me to respect Smith more, not less. It appeared that instead of debating the issues steering his arguments, they were distracting people, presenting too much material to digest in argument to trivial points, and attacking him ad hominem. In "Genetic Roulette", Smith offers so much material, from so many scientists, that even if you discounted 3/4 of it, he would still have a potent argument.

About Pusztai (must we really use an s?): Perhaps you have not read the chapters in Smith's book, "Seeds of Deception", about the case, but there are details there which your argument does not address and which would change it, I think. Or Rampton and Stauber's account, in their book, "Trust us, We're Experts". Even without Smith, we can look at Rampton and Stauber as a source. Under Wikipedia guidelines, one measure of a creditable source is that their books have to be published by a respected publishing house, and their publisher is Tarcher/Putnam, respectable enough to be included in the debate. Also, Rampton [21] is certainly educated enough about corporate corruption, which is the real story, not the scientific studies, to report on it.

Also Vandana Shiva, whose book, "Stolen Harvest", was published by South End Press, also a large and respected publishing house, and who has many other credentials and books as well, including a PhD in physics, is a credible source to represent the dissenting view. I quote from this interview :[22]: "the regulatory agencies that should have been controlling Monsanto, that should have been holding Cargill to account, were actually held captive by these corporations. And on behalf of these corporations, the regulatory agencies in the United States have lied to the American public. They have told falsehoods like substantial equivalents: 'don't worry genetically engineered food is exactly like non-genetically engineered food.' Falsehoods like 'we've tested it all out and it's all safe.' "

I considered proposing a change to the statements under question, such as the following: "Supporters of GM technology point to a broad consensus among scientists that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. Opponents claim that the GM industry has funded most of the existing studies themselves. Supporters point out that no reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food, but opponents point out that this is a misleading statement, as GM food has not been tested by research on human subjects." I argue that the no ill effects statement implies that these studies exist. The average person does not realize that this would be difficult and expensive, if not impossible, therefore the statement is misleading.

I am willing to keep it if I hear a lot of applause, but I think the para. I propose above is fair but unnecessary. The paragraphs which follow (paras. three and four in the intro. section), make comparable points, resolving the question of bias. This is why I proposed that para. two simply be deleted. It does not reflect the high standards which Wikipedia is becoming known for for unbiased reporting.Catrinka Trabont (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, consensus does not mean unanimity. Why do you keep conflating them? Shall we also change the global warming article to say "Supporters of the global warming theory point to a broad consensus...." and change the article on HIV/AIDS to say "Supporters of the idea that HIV causes AIDS point to a broad consensus that..."? That is not how WIkipedia works. Wikipedia states the consensus clearly and unambiguously. You have brought nothing that outweighs authoritative bodies like the WHO, the AAAS, the AMA, the National Academy of Science, the OECD, FDA, the EFSA, etc. who all agree that currently marketed foods from GM crops are as safe as/as risky as food from their conventional counterparts. And we do discuss health issues raised by dissenters in the article. The article and lead are properly constructed under WIki's policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Catrinka you are pretty new to WIkipedia - while it is somewhat OK that you went and changed the article (on the one hand, be bold, on the other, there is clearly not consensus here for the change you want); once Arc reverted you, as per WP:BRD, the exact wrong thing to do is to go ahead and do it again. This is heading down the road to edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The status quo version makes an broad medical claim about a broad category of foods, based on misrepresentation of sources cited and on (now) deliberate exclusion of other available sources. Change is needed urgently. There is no consensus on the current sentence about GMO safety, and given that this is a page about controversies, deleting this sentence of contested reassurance would be a better course of short-term action. groupuscule (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether there is consensus or not, please note that per WP:CONSENSUS, a lack of editor consensus on an issue means that the article remains in the version from prior to the discussion (except in cases of BLP, which this is not). Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Friends, I have enjoyed this challenging discussion, but I agree with Groupuscule that change is needed urgently. This consensus is not similar to the one on Global Warming or AAids. What is under dispute is a potential health risk which, if not subjected to proper scientific examination, could be truly devastating down the road. There is a strong probability, in my reading a certainty, that science and scientists are not being allowed to work on this properly. If the editors will not allow me to move the consensus statement to the Objectivity of Regulatory Bodies as I have (please note that that was my actual change; I am not sure that you understand that); after I undid his undo of my change). We've aired this topic enough in the talk pages to make it time to request mediation from the rest of the Wikipedia community. All I am requesting is that the statement be moved. Does anyone still object to that change, if so, I would like them to bring in a mediator of some kind. I am now out of time for several days.Catrinka Trabont (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Catrinka. Spoken like an activist! There is nothing urgent about changing Wikipedia, and the fact that you are stating this, shows that you are thinking of Wikipedia in terms of what Wikipedia is not (please do read that link, it is one of the "5 pillars" of Wikipedia). Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it doesn't leap to encompass the latest news. it is not a locus for activism. It is an encyclopedia that takes the long term. If you want to change regulation of GM food, please work with your government to do that. (this article describes regulation, btw) If you think scientists should have more access to GM crops to study, put pressure on the companies to provide their seeds to scientists. (this article describes that issue, btw) I know you do not like it, but GM food is, in the real world, mainstream, with entire regulatory agencies and economies built around it. Mainstream scientific consensus is that currently marketed food from GMOs is as safe as conventional food. If and when definitive data emerges that it is not, the consensus will change with it.Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Catrinka, what exactly would be the justification for the move? WP:LEAD is suppose to have a summary of the body. Especially for highly important aspects of the body which the position of the scientific community would fall under. Wikipedia articles related to science consistently, and essentially always, mention the position of the scientific community in the lead whether it's Creation–evolution controversy, Global warming controversy, Ultimate fate of the universe, etc. I see no reasonable justification that this article should be any different. What the scientific position actually is would be a completely different topic of discussion. But regardless of what it is, the position of the scientific community absolutely belongs in the lead. BlackHades (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. This really is a great discussion! Here is an excerpt from the Global warming controversy intro: "Climate scientists, especially in the US, have reported official and oil-industry pressure to censor or suppress their work and hide scientific data, with directives not to discuss the subject in public communications. Legal cases regarding global warming, its effects, and measures to reduce it, have reached American courts. The fossil fuels lobby, oil industry advocates and free market think tanks have often been accused of overtly or covertly supporting efforts to undermine or discredit the scientific consensus on global warming." I could re-word this to "Scientists investigating the hazards of GM foods, especially in the US, have reported official and GM seed-industry to censor or suppress...etc." This is why this controversy does not resemble the GW controversy, although it does, in an inside out sort of way.

In case you had not noticed, GM is a very hot item politically, at the moment. This also makes the treatment of the issue in Wikipedia, if not urgent, at least an issue of more than ordinary importance. Legal decisions are being made on this topic in the courts and in the states, as we speak.

As for calling me an activist and giving me advice along those lines: this is typical of how any GM skeptic is treated; like a sort of simple person. It would even warrant a section in the page...Attitudes about GM skeptics: They don't respect science, understand science, or understand the scientific method, according to pro-GM supporters. They are superstitious in the sense that GM foods are suspect because they are unnatural...this is a superstitious, not a cautious, stance. Despite the fact that GM skeptics advocate caution in proceeding into a new area of agriculture, these people are radicals, activists, not conservative. They must not understand that there is division within their own ranks: some who destroy GM test crops, others who just want the science to proceed fairly.

Objections to GM skepticism even sound like religious cults, warning their members not to read literature critical of their church. Jeffrey Smith cannot be trusted because he used to advocate meditation and yoga, which although they have been vindicated by scientific studies, are still "weird". He must not be able to understand science. Whatever you do, don't read anything he wrote.

Black: I have given plenty of reasons up till now which would justify the move of this statement. I hear what you say, that the position of the scientific community belongs in the lead. I just do not agree that this opinion is so unanimous, and I believe the unanimity which does exist, exists because of foul play. But I doubt I will ever convince you of that. Again, I am not here to argue the issue, but to be sure the page is fair and accurate in representing the controversies.

Here is a change which might satisfy our mutual concerns, although it is minor. Switch the position of the final paragraphs in the lead, so that immediately following the paragraph about consensus, we have the paragraph outlining the position of the skeptics, and end with the pro-GM stance.Catrinka Trabont (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Catrinka. There is already a section on scientific publishing here. The situation is quite different from the global warming scenario - you could not just switch the subject of the controversy. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As for GM being "hot" now, I am not sure that is true in any way at this time more than any other, and I wonder why you say that. But in any case, please see WP:RECENTISM which is something Wikipedia doesn't "do". What "legal decisions" are you talking about? Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You lump a lot into your next bullet. I did say "spoken like an activist" which is a very different thing from saying "you are an activist." I don't know you nor where you are coming from. Your idea about a section on "perceptions of anti-GMO forces" is interesting but I think is just a bunch of name-calling. There could be a parallel one on "perceptions of pro-GMO forces" (namely that supporters of GMOs are either mindless zombies who do Monsanto's bidding no matter how far removed from any contact with Monsanto they are, or they are reckless, greedy, lying bastards). Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey Smith is un-credible not because of his past doings, but rather because he repeatedly makes broad claims without scientific basis about how dangerous food from GMOs is. I have read Jeffrey Smith and Vandana Shiva and watched Food Inc and The World According to Monsanto. Have you read the work of FDA and OECD regulators who work on GM food? Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your feedback. I am returning to the margin just for clarity. Please review my suggested change again. It is extremely simple. Perhaps I should have said "Intro". Following the paragraph under dispute, about consensus, I am simply suggesting that we switch the order on the next two paragraphs, to give balance to the very strong statement about consensus, etc. Incidentally, this would also give the pro side the last word in the intro., so I am trying to be nice.

I just read other sections of this talk page more carefully, and I notice that this study had been suggested by Groupuscle and approved by someone, you I think. Did it ever make it to the page? [ http://www.ijsaf.org/archive/16/1/lotter1.pdf] Here's a quote: "A 2004 paper (Freese and Schubert, 2004) showed that there were internal FDA memos documenting an overwhelming consensus among the agency’s scientists that transgenic crops can have unpre- dictable, hard-to-detect side-effects – allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases. they had urged their superiors to require long-term studies. According to the authors of the paper, these communications were ignored. the biotechnology industry essentially won the battle for non-regulation of trans- genic foods when in 1992 the FDA released a policy statement on transgenic foods via the US Federal Register, the standard protocol for setting federal regulatory policy: ‘the agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way’ (57 Fr 22991 [1992-05-29]). the main elements of the regulatory framework are essentially voluntary. Companies that wish to release a genetically engineered food onto the market decide whether or not to consult with the federal agencies, and decide what scientific data to submit. the FDA does not test the products for safety (Mellon and rissler, 2003). the regulators rely ‘almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review’ (Friends of the earth, 2004)."

On Jeffrey Smith, I think he is a good source. He has backed up everything I have read of his scientific claims, with research. I suspect he could be more careful in his public talks. This does not discount him as a researcher of researches...The book, Genetic Roulette, is heavily footnoted with research.

I am embarrassed to ask, as it is probably somewhere else on the pages, but what work of FDA and OECD regulators are you referring to and where can I find it?

For recent news on GMOs, please use Google or someone. There's lots.

Please again consider my suggested change. It might mean we can even end this discussion. Of course, I might miss it. Is there a blog somewhere connected with Wikipedia?Catrinka Trabont (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please remember that the talk page is not a venue for general discussion of this issue. It looks like C.T. wants to make a change to the lead to "balance" a "very strong statement about consensus." I don't understand how switching paragraphs would change much, but the statement on consensus is hardly too strong. The position of Wikipedia is scientific consensus: most GM foods, unless specifically altered to be enriched in a specific nutrient, are nutritionally equivalent to non-GM foods and no more likely to be harmful. This isn't an industry perspective, it's a scientific perspective, and it's anchored in reliable sources. Did the authors of a scientific study conduct it because they're minions of a self-interested biotech company on one side or self-interested exploiters of largely ill-informed anti-GMO sentiment on the other? It doesn't matter to Wikipedia! What matters is whether the sources are reliable by Wikipedia's standards. A self-published book by Jeffrey Smith is unreliable. A statistically flawed article in a marginal journal is unreliable. A high level review of the current literature in a reputable journal is reliable. Almost everything in this last category tells us the same thing. C.T. and others can argue that the consensus is bought and paid for, or that a particular anti-biotech campaigner is eloquent, smart, and scholarly, but those are not valid arguments for Wikipedia. SpectraValor (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This is WP:NOTAFORUM. Without evidence of reliable sources to the contrary, this discussion is over and should be concluded. BlackHades (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, hello everyone. I agree this discussion should be concluded, at least unless and until someone else objects (or the "scientific consensus" changes!) Please keep in mind that this is a page about a controversy, and so both sides need representation. We have all, on this talk page, dipped into the controversy itself, and it has been hard to avoid, but please forgive me for doing so.

Jeffrey Smith is not my only source, and he may be my weakest source. Because of the objections here, I will not be using him in Wik. unless he becomes more reputable, etc. I appreciate the feedback. Though I note that a well informed person can use self published material, I was interested to hear what would be said.

Multiple sources have been presented on this talk page, many which pass muster for the Wik. standards, many not, in opposition to this consensus statement. While I find your arguments in support of the consensus statement sound, I still think it represents one side of the controversy (pro-GMO) , not the other side, (anti-GMO). This is why I am calling it strong, but I bow (curtsy, actually) to your objection. Science trumps opinion, whoever has paid for it. There are not as many well funded and well vetted sources against GMOs as there are in favor of them, so it is fair to call this a scientific consensus.

I propose moving the paragraphs as a simple way to keep the consensus statement, while allowing a voice from the other side to be the next to speak in the progression of paragraphs. If others agree that switching paragraphs would not change much, I will go ahead and do it. I think that would start to ease the many concerns which have been expressed about the page appearing biased. After awhile I may have other suggestions, but they would be for different aspects of the page.Catrinka Trabont (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to talk, Catrinka. When we describe controversies on wikipedia, we mind the weight of scientific evidence when describing the positions. You are asking to make the two sides - on the food safety issue - equal - and they are not equal on this issue. Things may change, but that is the story now, and has been for many years now.Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog. As I said above, I don't understand Catrinka's reasoning about the order of the paragraphs, but I would object to the proposed change. When the AMA and WHO and US FDA and various highly reputed journals come out with statements saying that GMO-derived foods are dangerous, we can revisit the topic. Until then, we cannot pretend that GMO opponents should receive equal time or paragraph order consideration even in a controversy article. With all due respect, Catrinka is mistaken. This isn't a "pro-GMO" vs "anti-GMO" issue. According to the reliable sources, it's science vs pseudoscience, or something very close to the latter. SpectraValor (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Report on sources for "broad scientific consensus"

Hi everybody. Here is a report on the sources currently used to support the claim of a "broad scientific consensus" on the comparative safety of genetically modified food. I have found that these sources are of poor quality; some are mis-represented and some mis-representative. (Among these sources, the reports published in peer-reviewed journals actually provide least evidence of a broad consensus, often deferring this claim through citations to low quality non-peer-reviewed sources.) I hope that everyone interested in this issue will read the report and take action as they see appropriate. I will not spam the link to this report, but I will post it at certain locations where this issue is directly under debate. Editors are welcome to discuss the report at the associated talk page, or to open up some new space for discussion of this issue. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend that you make an edit, even if you expect it to be reverted, to focus the discussion around a change (similarly, in board meetings debate often revolves around a motion). If I can comment here rather than there - quickly reading through your analysis, it makes some very fair points. Sources should be reviewed to make sure they're not just misinterpreting a more authoritative source with a more nuanced position. The statement that there is "broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food" is probably at least a little misleading, due to a number of reasons including (1) the scope and dynamic nature of the products the statements in the past about a current date and, more substantively, (2) it is generally acknowledged that the "new" nature of these foods means that the risk is technically (even if quite marginally) higher, and it is unrealistic to assume that premarket testing is perfect (thus the NRC suggests postmarket surveillance). On another note, the Cry9C example involving Starlink™ which you highlight as noted by the Joint Research Centre is a case in point. Yes, technically it is/was not on the market as food for humans but rather as feed (ignoring the pedantic point that feed is still technically food), but it was known to have allergenicity and yet was accidentally commingled; this is an example of risk, even if not direct risk. As far as the broader point about equivalence, your analysis notes that the scientific committees which looked at this made the nuanced point that technically, both conventional and engineered modifications need to be evaluated as both can cause harmful changes, but engineered changes clearly tend to be more significant so it's reasonable to expect that they will dominate in terms of risk and regulatory testing, and both also made the point that the testing needs to be improved, apparently significantly. I also agree that the AAAS board of directors one-page editorial statement is a problematic source. There's no indication that the AAAS members were polled; it's basically an ex cathedra statement at the ranking at the lowest level of evidence. Even worse would be a WHO FAQ with no author or date. For the AMA resolution recommending premarket testing, would be interesting to know what the vote tally was. Peer-reviewed reviews focusing on the question (such as the one AAAS referred to, Snell et al 2012, which it's not clear you discussed and may want to address) or authoritative committee reports (such as the NRC or the EC JRC) which actually spent some time reviewing the literature should receive the most weight. However, these scientific publications tend to be a bit more carefully worded. II | (t - c) 09:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

groupuscule, this is a great example of a deconstructionist reading - finding the seams in a text and tearing it apart based on them, rather than taking what it says on the surface. The key seam you seem to exploiting, is the widespread desire for better analytical tools. I have said several times here that everybody wants better analytical tools. That includes, especially, regulators. That desire does not however, undermine the consensus that the analyses conducted to date are good enough. For example....the OECD document that you cite, which I think is so great for being very clear in describing this desire is nonetheless very clear that currently marketed food from GMOs has been adequately studied and is indeed as safe as food from conventional organisms. Reading the Executive Summary of the OECD document on the surface, it is crystal clear that the work that has been done to date is good enough but they want better tools: (emphasis added)

• 1. "There are systems in place in the majority of OECD countries for the safety assessment of genetically modified (GM) foods and feeds. Most participants in the OECD’s Task Force for the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds work in national ministries or agencies whose responsibility is to ensure consumer safety"
• "2. Regulatory bodies in some of the OECD countries have approved approximately 40 GM foods, and more approvals are expected in the near future. The main issues addressed by food safety assessors are the implications on human health, including the impact of genes which code for antibiotic resistance, the identification of toxicological or allergenic properties of new food components introduced through genetic modifications; and nutritional impacts.
• 3. "Safety assessors use a number of internationally established scientific principles, including substantial equivalence, in their work. "
• 4. "Much experience has been gained in the safety assessment of the first generation of foods derived through modern biotechnology, and those countries that have conducted assessments are confident that those GM foods they have approved are as safe as other foods. Nevertheless, some have raised concerns about the adequacy of existing test methods"
• 12 "Although food safety assessment is based on sound science, there is a clear need for increased transparency and for safety assessors to communicate better with the public."

Bottom line, your document is a work of OR - a deconstructionist essay that might make a great article on Truthout but has no role in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources listed are high quality authority sources. Aside from the fact that several of the sources directly affirm the "broad scientific consensus" statement, is the fact that every major scientific and medical organization in the world that have published an opinion on GM food, have drawn the same conclusion. That GM food on the market pose no greater risk than conventional food. Not a single major scientific or medical organization in the world have stated the contrary or released a statement opposed to GM food. This is where the scientific consensus on GM food is identical to the scientific consensus on global warming. Where just like GM food, not a single major scientific organization in the world today denies anthropogenic global warming. BlackHades (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see something disturbingly desperate about the apparent need to draw a (false) parallel between science of GMOs and climate change. El duderino ^(abides) 12:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's an accurate parallel. Both are heavily controversial in the general public yet have broad consensus in the scientific field. You could easily disprove this assertion by naming a single major science or medical organization in the world that makes any claim or suggestion that the risk of GM food on the market are higher than that of conventional food. Can you name one? If you did that, you will have overwhelming support from editors here to strike the "broad scientific consensus" statement and rule it as inaccurate. This would certainly be far more compelling than the current use of editor synthesis of high authority sources. BlackHades (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"It's an accurate parallel." bullshit, it's a straw man, there are multiple grounds for taking issue with the GMO industry, many of them being perfectly valid, reducing the debate to being nothing more than a bunch of tin foil hat wearers (who believe GM food is unsafe) versus "scientists" is myopic in the extreme. It is possible to be scientifically literate and still find problems with the way the GMO issue is being dealt with; revolving doors, corporate funded interest groups, lobbying, and industry funded research all play a role in fueling cynicism and speculation. And in the context of the global warming matter, let's not forget the amount of money energy corporations have spent over the years in buttressing climate change denial. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your response is a straw man argument. No one here was claiming there are no issues with the GMO industry. The current argument is over the accuracy of the statement "There is broad scientific consensus that GM food on the market pose no greater risk than conventional food." In regards to that specifically, yes the parallel is accurate. BlackHades (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There are many reasons to take issue with the GMO industry, yes. The anti-scientific claims are the problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

@semitransgenic, your response is too broad - this is solely focused on relative safety of currently marketed food from GMOs. And it is on that narrow topic that the parallel with global warming is apt. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

you are missing the point, the "parallel" is increasingly rolled out to dismiss dissent, and not simply on the matter of GMO food safety, this trend is problematic. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Can't speak for the wider scene, and want to stay on topic here which is the consensus that currently marketed food from GMOs is as safe as food from conventional counterparts. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the climate change deniers say exactly the same thing. This discussion is about the consensus on food safety, not the GM industry, or Monsanto, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

BlackHades, I have tried to address concerns about "original research" in a new section of the report linked below. There are some articles addressing the comparison between 'climate change skeptics' and 'genetic modification skeptics' as well. However, I wanted to share Tom Philpott's article, “Some GMO Cheerleaders Also Deny Climate Change”, which did not fit particularly well within the scope of the report. Philpott mentions the case of Henry I. Miller, whose work is still cited as support for the "broad consensus" claim:

When he's not pushing GMOs, Miller can be found defending the endocrine-disrupting, ubiquitous industrial chemical BPA against scientific critics, exposing "Rachel Carson's Deadly Fantasies," decrying "Obama's radical agenda," and making the case for why you should want "pink slime" in your hamburger. In a 2010 op-ed in the Orange County Register called "Adapt and Survive Gore's Apocalypse," Miller aired out his view on climate. "Assuming for the sake of argument that the Earth is, indeed, warming and even that it's due to human activities," he declared, "any significant lowering of emissions will be too costly, too little and too late." In other words, the only reasonable response to the climate threat (assuming it really exists!) is no action at all. Well, he did allow for one exception:

Actions to reduce emissions should only be undertaken if they're likely to be cost-effective and if they have desirable secondary effects as well; an example would be a significant shift from fossil fuels to nuclear power.

Miller is also listed as an "adjunct scholar" at the ExxonMobil-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute, which specializes in denialist "straight talk on global warming." […]

The general shtick here is to defend large, lucrative industries against critics and regulators. In that light, there's no contradiction in opposing action on climate change while also pushing GMOs.

I think I agree with Philpott that corporate interests represent a more authentic connection between the climate change debate and the genetic modification debate. And the tobacco debate, for that matter. Consider the issue of timeframe: industry publicists sought for decades to prove that tobacco and fossil fuels were safe (and awesome). Only later did science settle in the other direction. Now, obviously no one knows the future of scientific consensus on genetic engineering. But to me it's also obvious (especially after slogging through dozens of articles) that the science of genetic modification is far from settled. groupuscule (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• The original research is flawed, on multiple levels. groupuscule confuses Gene transfer with safety of consumption, he tries to analyze sources like User:Groupuscule/GMO#WHO.2C_date_unknown, and puts the irrelevant bits in bold while ignoring statements like "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved." from the source. In some parts he quotes sources, and acts as though they rebut other sources without any obvious indicator of why, etc etc. In other words, this is a disastrous attempt at original research. If he wants to submit his analysis, try get it published in a peer reviewed journal, otherwise it has no purpose here since it's original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi everybody, I am pleased to announce Part 2 of the report, titled "Evidence of Dissensus". This part was more fun (though also more time consuming and sometimes more grim) to write and research because it addresses topics of ongoing debate in the scientific community. Please also see the Addendum to Part 1, which discusses some of the responses here and goes further in explaining why I have created this "report" as a standalone page. The top of Part 1 has been lightly tweaked and one quotation added from the NRC report. (This quotation culled from the careful reading of Historyday01, who deserves much credit for kickstarting this discussion.) The lead of the report is also updated to better reflect its purpose and importance.

The page has been vandalized several times, and I would appreciate anyone who might keep an eye open in order to respond if the vandalism continues. The last thing I wish to do is limit debate or silence critics, and I hope that people will engage with the substance of the report (both sections) at its talk page, or in some other location. Thanks also to to Iselilja, whose translation of a Norwegian article has been included. Salaam, groupuscule (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to point that American Academy of Environmental Medicine is not a legitimate medical group. They are listed under Quackwatch and are known to promote quackery such as homeopathy and naturopathy. It's a fraudulent "medical" group and definitely not a WP:RS. BlackHades (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Your poor original research is a waste of our time and yours, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Original research? I'm not publishing the results of studies done in my basement; I have compiled an annotated list of secondary sources who disagree with the aggressively pro-GMO "safety" claim currently at this page. Please take moment to read this response to your accusation.

You compiled a list of secondary sources, cherry picked what you liked and then accused of misinformation those you didn't. Then you added some Anti-GMO funded sources, tried to interpret them, and used them to dismiss the secondary sources. You refer to it as a "report". Go get your "report" published, or else it has no value here. I'm not going to waste any more of my time reading what you have written on that userpage because your original research analysis is poor and skewed. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I might add: it's very rude that, after I responded to the concern you raised on my talk page, you unilaterally nominated the whole page for deletion. If you think that parts of the page violate the BLP policy, let's talk about resolving those parts, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. Surely you think some of these sources will prove useful, here on this page and at others? groupuscule (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think having a large body of original research in your userspace is inappropriate. It's blog material. If I posted a large analysis of the Anti-GMO movement on my userspace, I think you might agree. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

IRWolife, you attack my analysis as "original research", "blog material", and even "BLP violations", even though I am performing an honest analysis of reliability and I use numerous secondary sources to do so. I have no interest in publishing this document anywhere else because it is designed as a response to the situation on Wikipedia—nothing less and nothing more. I admit my research did focus on the unknown and negative aspects of genetic engineering, because I felt that an excessively rosy picture was being painted on Wikipedia. However I did not "cherry pick" in a way that misrepresents the literature base; nor did I accuse anyone of misinformation simply because I disagreed with their findings.

Meanwhile, you yourself refer (without explanation, analysis, or secondary sources) to an article by Claire Robinson and Jonathan R. Latham as "conspiratorial ideation". I feel as though you may be applying a double standard, based on your opinion about genetic engineering. I wonder: do you think any of these sources I've presented are useful? After reading the report, do you still consider all 13 sources cited to be valid support for the "broad scientific consensus" claim? I admit I am surprised that no one has acted to modify these at all.

I don't object to your posting a "large analysis of the Anti-GMO movement" and actually I would encourage it; I think there should be more coverage of this movement on Wikipedia. If you are interested in expanding coverage of the "Anti-GMO" movement—and not simply threatening to do something you perceive as retaliation—I would be happy to work with you in transforming your research into a mainspace article. Salut, groupuscule (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

groupuscule, calling the document in your userspace "original research" as in WP:OR is not an attack, it is a simple description. You make it clear at the very beginning that you do not agree with the consensus statement, and that the essay will directed to arguing against it. That is about as OR as it gets. As I mentioned above, you do not analyze each of the sources for reliability or even call out the statements in it, that it is being used for in support of the consensus statement. For instance, take your discussion of the National Research Council 2004 book. First of all, you don't say at all whether you find the source to reliable under WP:RS. Secondly and more importantly, instead of finding and discussing the texts in that source where the safety of actual food from GMOs is discussed (which is why we and others including Ronald cite it), you got distracted by your deconstruction effort, and instead wrote about 4 inches of text sourced from it that point up the risks of food from GMOs. This makes sense, because that is the point of your essay. But this discussion is not an even-handed, clear, concise analysis of what the NRC said about safety of currently marketed food from GMOs. Please look at the section again and you will see what I mean. And this is what you did with most of these sources, which is why I haven't even been able to respond to the document except to say, "it is OR and a nice piece of deconstruction." That, and the fact that it is littered with editorializing asides like "And that statement has been repeated multiple times by “science journalists”, smugly contemptuous of those who disagree." Right? You have written an essay that makes an argument. If you really want this is to serve as a useful tool to focus discussion on the sources (which it could be) - (and I did say if!) you ~could~ strip out the editorializing, and present each source, summarize what it says about safety (e.g. the quotes in the boxes above and anything else you find relevant) and then apply the analysis under WP:RS to it, in a nice concise, organized way. What does it say, and is it reliable. Or not! But right now, your document is what it is, and that is an essay that presents a thesis and argues for it. WP:OR.Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The NRC report says the following (at pp. 118–119):

Higher Probability of Unanticipated Changes

A large number of compositional changes in foods may potentially arise from any method of genetic modification of food. Furthermore, genetic engineering, as previously discussed, has a higher probability of producing unanticipated changes than some genetic modification methods, such as narrow crosses, and a lower probability than others, such as radiation mutagenesis. Therefore, the nature of the compositional change merits greater consideration than the method used to achieve the change, for example, the magnitude of additions or deletions of specific constituents and modifications that may result in an unintended adverse effect, such as enhanced allergenic potential. Constituents whose levels are increased could well include some of the “natural” toxins present in food, thereby enhancing the potential for adverse effects to occur with consumption of that food. Examples of deletions of specific constituents that merit consideration are those intended to enhance nutrient bioavailability by reducing barriers to absorption. Modifications intended to enhance uptake of essential nutrients (e.g., reduction of phytic acid to improve iron or zinc bioavailability, and thus decrease the risk of iron or zinc deficiency) are particularly attractive. Paradoxically, the more effective such modifications are, the likelier are unintended effects on the bioavailability of other dietary constituents, that is, changes that increase uptake of essential trace elements also may increase the bioavailability of unwanted contaminants, such as toxic heavy metals. Hazards that may be of concern after this type of general evaluation are toxicities, allergies, nutrient deficiencies and imbalances, risks related to nutrient displacement, and risks related to endocrine activity and diet-related chronic diseases. These categories are not exclusive. For example, although idiopathic (without known origin) reactions also are distinct possibilities, they are not discussed because, by their very nature, they are presently impossible to predict. Since many idiopathic reactions are likely genetically determined, they may be predictable in the future as genetic polymorphisms are better understood. The International Life Sciences Institute has reviewed the safety of DNA in foods (ILSI, 2002b) and has published a monograph on Genetic Modification Technology and Food: Consumer Health and Safety (ILSI, 2002a).

If that wasn't clear enough the report lays out its comparative risk assessment in this chart. At least two editors have now called your attention to these parts of the text. Yet you and others continue cite this source as evidence that "there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food." Why? groupuscule (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi groupuscule; I responded to you above, to try to have a conversation about your document - you said that calling it OR is an attack; I said that calling it OR is just a simple description and gave examples as to why it is OR - calling it OR is not an attack. Would you please respond? All additionally, I mentioned that you did not cite the texts in the NRC book that discuss the safety of currently marketed GM food, and you still are not doing that. Would you please respond? The NRC report definitely discusses theoretical risks of GM food, as you point out in your excerpt. I have also noted that the NRC report discusses shortcomings of existing analytical techniques and of our existing knowledge base, and expresses a desire for "more and better" for each. Discussion of theoretical risks of GM food is is a different topic from the relative safety of currently marketed food from GMOs - I don't know why folks keep conflating them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You and IRWolfie are describing as "original research" what I would call "research". We don't publish the former; we desperately need more of the latter. "Research" is more than copy/pasting a URL.

• When I described IRWolfie as "attacking" the report, I was referring primarily to his (and your) attempt to delete the report entirely. I think that deletion would be egregious, given the importance of the topic and the depth of the research. I suppose that IRWolfie calling my work "disastrous" and "a waste of our time and yours" might be considered rude. I do not care about wiki-indicting anyone for "attacking" me, if that's what you're getting at.
• Which section of this report do you think evaluates the genetically engineered products currently on the market?
• How can you credibly distinguish between risks inherent to genetic engineering and the foods currently on the market if, as per your "reality-based" source below, these foods are not publicly tested before entering the market?

I'm not too interested in going back and forth with you about semantics when you have yet to address not only the criticism of these sources but also the mass of evidence demonstrating scientific dissensus. As I have explained in the report's lead, for Wikipedia to call something "safe" requires far more certainty than exists here. As it stands, several mainspace articles now repeat a bold and sweeping medical claim without adequate substantiation. groupuscule (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this discussion. I will dig up the passages tonight and post them here. I am sorry you didn't find them. I am sorry too that you cannot see that your essay exactly fits the definition of WP:OR. As I mentioned, if you had just done bullet points and listed the source, listed the relevant statements, and provided a brief critique under WP:RS, that would have been useful; instead you wrote an essay attacking a thesis and everything is too tangled to engage with.Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As promised (from here:

• pp IX-X "In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic engineering techniques used in food production. This may be because developers of bioengineered organisms perform extensive compositional analyses to determine that each phenotype is desirable and to ensure that unintended changes have not occurred in key components of food."
• p8: "All evidence evaluated to date indicates that unexpected and unintended compositional changes arise with all forms of genetic modification, including genetic engineering. Whether such compositional changes result in unintended health effects is dependent upon the nature of the substances altered and the biological consequences of the compounds. To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."
• p9 "As is discussed in Chapter 3, the policy to assess products based exclusively on their method of breeding is scientifically unjustified."
• p12 "Given the possibility that food with unintended changes may enter the marketplace despite premarket safety mechanisms, postmarket surveillance of exposures and effects is needed to validate premarket evaluations. On the other hand, there are many instances in which postmarket surveillance may not be warranted. For example, when compositional comparisons of a new GM crop or food (e.g., Roundup Ready soybeans) with its conventional counterpart indicate they are compositionally very similar; exposure to novel components remains very low. Thus the process of identifying unintended compositional changes in food is best served by combining premarket testing with postmarket surveillance, when compositional changes indicate that it is warranted, in a feedback loop that follows a new GM food or food product long term, from development through utilization."

Additional quick note. I have noted many times that regulators and other scientists want more and better data. And you cite a lot of that in your discussion of this source. What I want to point out here, is that the purpose of the NRC report was exactly to discuss what we lack and what would be better. As page X says (right after the point made in the first bullet point above): "Improvement in currently available methods for identifying and assessing unintended compositional changes in food could further enhance the ability of product developers and regulators to perform appropriate testing to assure the safety of food. Whether all such analyses are warranted and are the most appropriate methods for discovering unintended changes in food composition that may have human health consequences remains to be determined. Scientific advances in agricultural biotechnology continue to improve our understanding of plant crops, microorganisms, and food-animal genetics. Nevertheless, the public health system continues to face many questions about the impact of agricultural biotechnology on human health. As a result of these new scientific advances and public concern about the potential for unintended compositional changes in genetically engineered food that might in turn result in unintended health effects, the National Academies convened this committee to explore the similarities and differences between genetic engineering and other genetic modifications, including conventional breeding practices, with respect to the frequency and nature of unintended effects associated with them—in particular with regard to potential changes in the biochemical composition of plant- and animal-derived foods and methods that would be most useful in assessing the occurrences of unintended changes that might affect consumer health." In other words, you have beat a dead horse, with all your citations from this source about possible risks. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The quotations extracted here do not support the claim. We have all established that absence of documented effects is not identical to safety. (There are many other reasons that absence of documented effects does not equal safety, including the fact that genetically modified foods are not labeled in the U.S. and cannot be attributed as the source of health problems.) The claim that "the policy to assess products based exclusively on their method of breeding is scientifically unjustified" may be a galling repetition of the late 80s party line, but it also does not amount to a blanket claim of (comparative) safety of products currently on the market. As elaborated in the law review Jytdog posted below, government regulators can tell us very little about the safety of these foods. So the quotations from the NRC report stand: there is a greater safety risk associated with genetically engineered foods. groupuscule (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

wow thanks for responding! The scientific consensus is based on (i) data, and (ii) a string of reasoning. I am not sure you even know what the string of reasoning is. In any case, YES the NRC report goes through the ways to genetically modify plants (and animals) and YES it points out specific risks of genetic engineering. (btw can you please tell me where it specifically says "there is a greater safety risk associated with genetically engineered foods"? I do not believe it says that anywhere but I would be open to being shown wrong.) Bottom line, however, the NRC report lives in the real world - the same world where you, groupuscule live and where you measure, say, the risk of going outside on a sunny day, and you go ahead and do it even though sunshine causes melanoma. The NRC report discusses many theoretical things, but at the end of the day it, like the scientific consensus, says "the policy to assess products based exclusively on their method of breeding is scientifically unjustified" - and devotes an entire chapter to that. How in the world can you just ignore that? This is what I mean, about how you aggressively deconstruct this text. Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Groupuscule, you seem to be misrepresenting the sources yourself. You are aggressively analysing the sources and being nit-picky. The scientific consensus is clear. You are trying to undermine it using unfounded doubt. BeŻet (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Note on the consensus on the relative safety of eating food from GMOs, and opposition to it; an effort to clear the air a bit

Hi

I want to throw some statements out, and talk about them briefly.

First of all, folks objecting to the consensus keep piling in all kinds of issues that are unrelated to the relative safety of eating currently marketed foods from GMOs. The consensus has nothing to do with patents, or environmental effects, or industrial agriculture. The conversation about food-safety issues is complex on its own, and it would be really great if we keep the focus on food-safety when discussing this. Please, please open other sections, to discuss other issues.

OK here are a list of statements about food safety.

• 1) All GMOs are safe
• 2) Currently marketed GMOs are safe
• 3) The characterization of the risks/safety of eating currently marketed food from GMOs, relative to food from conventional organisms, is sufficient, and food from GMOs is more safe/less risky
• 4) The characterization of the risks/safety of eating currently marketed food from GMOs, relative to food from conventional organisms, is sufficient, and the risks/safety are equivalent
• 5) More characterization of the risks/safety of eating currently marketed food from GMOs, relative to food from conventional organisms, would be useful
• 6) The characterization of the risks/safety of eating currently marketed food from GMOs, relative to food from conventional organisms, is insufficient to make any statement of equivalency or lack thereof
• 7) The characterization of the risks/safety of eating currently marketed food from GMOs, relative to food from conventional organisms, is sufficient, and food from GMOs is less safe/more risky
• 8) Currently marketed GMOs are dangerous
• 9) All GMOs are dangerous

Each of these statements is 1) definitive (I used "is" and "are" carefully) and are non-overlapping with the others, with the exception of 5 which overlaps with all of them.

So what about them?

• 1) and 9) are ridiculous generalizations that nobody in a serious conversation should ever say about their own position or that of others. This is sloppy at best and taken at face value, fringe.
• 2) and 8) are somewhat less ridiculous generalizations that nobody in a serious conversation should ever say about their own position or that of others. This is sloppy at best and taken at face value, fringe.
• 3) and 7) have the benefit of being grounded in something defined (currently marketed products) and relative as opposed to absolute, but neither is supported by evidence. This too is fringe. (I anticipate argument from the fringe on this description of 7)
• 5) - I feel confident that there is no one reasonable who disagrees with this (I will be very surprised if someone does)

The really interesting and difficult conversation, is between 4) and 6). Although the consensus is at 4), a reasonable, scientifically-grounded conversation can be had with position 6). And here is the essence of the issue - the difference is not purely scientific. It is really a question of policy. Namely, risk management policy and the precautionary principle, which is one way to think about risk management. Risk management is an infamously difficult topic to communicate to the public. (Think about protecting New Orleans from flooding. We could spent a gazilion dollars and build levies and systems to ensure that New Orleans will never be flooded again. The higher the walls and the more secure the system, the more expensive, and the more sure that there will never be flooding. With respect to spending tax dollars responsibly, how much money should we spend? How sure should we be?)

The hard thing, is that risk management does employ science to identify the potential risks and to quantify or qualify them. And that is where things become very science-y again. But the key thing is to remember is that we are not talking about pure science - we are talking about the application of science to assess risk - about toxicology. The crux of the issue, is "how much and what kind of evidence is enough to meaningfully assess risk?" Respectable scientists who are not in the mainstream on this, like David Suzuki say "we do not have enough to know." (position 6) Seralini actually started out that way, and has sadly moved out to 7), pushing the conclusions of flawed studies to make statements way more definitive than his data can support. The consensus is that we have enough evidence for currently marketed GM food and it is as safe as/as risky as food from conventional sources. And that more information would be useful.

I threw this out here, to see if this could help focus the conversation and help move away from unproductive red herrings, so that we can move forward. I anticipate we may have more conversation about 7 but my hope is that it will quickly become clear that there is insufficient evidence to say, scientifically, that "The characterization of the risks/safety of eating currently marketed food from GMOs, relative to food from conventional organisms, is sufficient, and food from GMOs is less safe/more risky" Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I like this analysis, and agree with your conclusion, although I don't think most people would use the word "characterization" as you have it. In fact, I think you have found a point at which both sides might agree. How would it be used in the editing? I think the majority of the anti-GM camp would agree that the hazards are not established. More information would be useful. Most of the pros seem to think the issue is resolved, although I noted that most of the first six organizations in the references were gearing up to do more research. This is one reason why other editors have questioned whether they really supported the consensus statement, even when version of it were on their websites. Catrinka Trabont (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

CT, further research is always wanted; GM foods aren't exceptional in this. For example, when a new and useful technique for evaluating safety comes out, I think it would be suspicious if people didn't want to use it to test GM foods (or anything else).

The situation is somewhat like this: suppose we're 98% confident that X is true, where fact X is relevant to public safety. In other words, there's a 49/50 chance that further research will confirm that we're correct, and thus it will increase our confidence to 99% or 99.5%. This is important information. And if we're wrong, that's even more important to know (it is unlikely, but still a remote possibility). But this doesn't mean that we weren't already quite confident to begin with. These numbers are made up, of course, but the difference between 98% and 99% confidence is an important one even though we already started with a high confidence level. There is no contradiction between being confident in one's results and also supporting further research into those same results.

Additional note: further research can also be useful for other reasons, e.g. because the situation can change, and because the research can often be used to learn about related but separate topics as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This typology seems established to make the position (globally, a minority/fringe position) of the biotech industry and sympathetic (non-)regulators seem to be a reasonable and moderate position. Catrinka Talbot's interpretation and the subsequent reply indicate that the intended use of this framework is to downplay hazards and unknown aspects. Specifically, it lumps together true critics with those who say that more testing "would be good" but for some reason isn't necessary to establish safety. In so doing it does not conform well to the contours of the literature, as discussed in multiple literature reviewed. Furthermore, the article as it stands gives undue weight to this industry talking point (about comparative safety and products currently on the market), compared to many other possible statements. groupuscule (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

hi groupuscule. I'm sorry, I don't follow your remarks above. Who are the "true critics" you mention? To explain a bit, i think everybody wants more and better data. Regulators, whose job it is to assess how "substantially equivalent" a proposed new GM food to its conventional counterpart, and if it is not, what further tests should be done, definitely want more and better and would welcome it (and are working to get it) even with regard to products already on the market. Supporters of GM crops would love more data because they believe it would finally shut up the critics (dubious hope); critics would love more data since they believe it would get GM crops off the market finally. Who doesn't want more data? Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

oh and i also wanted to say, although regulators worldwide - especially in the EU - have followed the scientific consensus and found that they have enough data to approve food from currently marketed GM crops (all the same ones as we have in the US); two things have prevented the food from actually going to market in several jurisdictions where they have been approved by regulators: 1) governments have made political decisions not to allow them to be marketed, standing at Position 6; and 2) in jurisdictions where labeling is mandatory, retailers have refused to stock products containing food from GMOs, to avoid the controversy protestors would bring. Neither of those has anything to do with science and everything to do with politics. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That is a generalization true for few countries. The reverse is actually true in Australia. The government here pushes GMOs for political reasons (pressure from the U.S. government and biotech companies) while the opposition has been primarily by farmers on economic and environmental grounds. Australia exports around 60% of the food we grow, mainly to countries who pay a premium for both organic and GMO free produce. Contamination has been a big problem that has severely impacted on many farmers incomes. The excessively high water requirements for GM cotton (modification is the only reason it can be grown here at all) in New South Wales has contributed to water restrictions for communities as far as Adelaide, 1500 km from the cotton farms which doesn't win any friends. Retailers refuse to stock GM products not because of any controversies, but because they do not sell well. They do not sell because they hurt the local farmers which has a big influence on purchasing in Australia where organic produce is increasing it's market share every year at the expense of normal produce let alone GM. Apart from financial benefits for biotech companies there are no economic benefits to the public for having GMOs here yet they are forced on us as a condition of our trade agreements with the U.S. Wayne (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note but a) this is all off topic of the schema above and b) to be honest, this sounds like a lot of spin. The only GM crops grown in Australia are canola and cotton; they have been modified for herbicide resistance or to produce Bt. I don't know what you mean by "the only reason cotton can be grown here at all is because of the genetic modification" - that makes no sense. And cotton has been grown in Australia since 1788. I do know that there has been litigation in Australia from farmers who grow conventional canola suing neighbors who are growing GM canola, over contamination of the non-GM canola with GM. Controversy, for sure. But not wholesale rejection by farmers. Australian regulators have approved those two crops and more, but Australia's system give state governments a lot of power as to whether to allow them to grown (like the EU does with member states) and as in Europe, political considerations have made things move slowly. Which sounds like it makes you happy. Biotech advocacy groups in Australia say that where they have been allowed to be sold and grown, biotech crops have been rapidly adopted by farmers. I don't know of any data that indicates that farmers are rejected GM crops - would be interested in data you have that backs up those claims. As for retailers, the data I have seen that retailers don't even stock food with labels, where labels are mandatory, not because people don't buy them - they never stock them to begin with because they are afraid of protestors raising a ruckus and scaring off customers. So I am very curious about the data you have to support anything that you wrote above. As mentioned above, we should create a new section for the situation in Australia if you want to keep discussing this. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus"

Please help to evaluate the statement: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food." groupuscule (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Framing Statement: Commenters, please note that (1) this does not say "all GM food is safe" (it is limited to currently marketed food that has passed the regulatory bar - it says nothing about crops that have been removed from the market (like Starlink) nor about theoretical foods that might for example cause allergic reactions) and (2) it is relative to conventional food, which is not 100% safe. Also, commenters please note that this statement is limited to the safety of eating GM food - it says nothing about the safety of pesticides or herbicides per se; it says nothing about environmental issues with GM crops; it says nothing about patents or other economic issues; it says nothing about whether monoculture/big ag is a good thing or a bad thing; it says nothing about whether current regulatory systems are adequate; it says nothing about labelling. One of the very hard issues in the extensive discussions we have had on this page has been that people objecting to this statement have discussed other issues. Thanks for your help, all. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC) (note - originally included my vote with the framing statement. Edited to make the framing statement neutral, as was the RfC. Moved my "vote" to a separate comment. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC))

Sources being used to support the statement

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers American Medical Association (2012). Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods World Health Organization. Food safety: 20 questions on genetically modified foods. Accessed December 22, 2012. United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full-text. National Academies Press. See pp11ff on need for better standards and tools to evaluate GM food. A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010) (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Union. 2010. p. 16. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. Other sources: Winter CK and Gallegos LK (2006). Safety of Genetically Engineered Food. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Communications, Publication 8180. Ronald, Pamela (2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics. 188 (1): 11–20. Miller, Henry (2009). "A golden opportunity, squandered" (PDF). Trends in biotechnology. 27 (3): 129–130. Bett, Charles (August 2010). "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food". Food Policy. 35 (4): 332–340. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.01.003. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Li, Quan; McCluskey, Jill; Wahl, Thomas (2004). "Effects of information on consumers' willingness to pay for GM-corn-fed beef". Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization. 2 (2): 1–16. Dr. Christopher Preston, AgBioWorld 2011. Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods. List of sources added by Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Solidly supported by the science, hotly contested politically. This is the heart of the problem; there are a lot of people who are worried about food from GM crops, and questions of whether it should be allowed on the market and/or labelled are hot political questions. The statement above reflects the scientific consensus on whether it is safe enough to eat GM food, and is well supported by sources in the article.Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC) (note - Moved my "vote" to this comment, out of the framing statement. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC))

• The politicization of the GMO issue has clearly affected "the science", as well as institutions which represent "the science". This is a source of complaints about the AAAS report and others. groupuscule (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The link is to a userspace page. See below for discussion. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

But that's not at all what the RfC is about: it's whether "there is broad scientific consensus," not whether the scientific consensus should exist in the opinions of individual Wikipedians or is based on shady dealings or is unduly influenced by conflicts of interest. When reliable sources are published stating that the current, overwhelming scientific consensus is illusory and has been shaped by fraudsters who are secretly or openly paid off by biotech companies, we can certainly address that in the article. But it still doesn't change that the current, broad consensus is verifiable. SpectraValor (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• As someone coming here from the RfC and new to the page, I agree 100% with everything that Jytdog just said. Looking narrowly at the question as written and as Jytdog has framed it, the science claiming a lack of safety is WP:FRINGE. However, as a political or social view, it is probably the mainstream view that GMOs are risky. And it is clearly possible to create a GMO that would, scientifically, not be safe to eat. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Jyt is far too kind to the other side on this issue, but he's also correct on the basic point: the statement is accurate according to the science, and hotly contested by people holding a fringe viewpoint on the matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, there is no "stalemate" on the matter, as the requester suggested, just personal opinions versus Wikipedia policies. The reliable sources are about as close to unanimous as you can get in science. When the WHO and the American Medical Association and many others change their positions, there will be something to evaluate in an RfC. Today, it is a waste of everyone's time. SpectraValor (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• The statement in question accurately represents the scientific consensus as it exists in WP:reliable sources. This issue has been thoroughly debated in talk and no evidence has been presented that the statement is inaccurate in any way in regards to the scientific field. BlackHades (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Statement supported exactly per Jytdog, above, IMO and by some knowledge of this literature. The point about this being risk through consumption I would say is particularly important. Also, probably also worth confirming that this is GM food that has already been cleared by, e.g., the FDA (i.e. "approved for market"); the stuff that doesn't clear such reviews is probably notably more risky. FYI: Nature (journal) has had some recent review articles on exactly this topic which will bear this out (e.g., ~2-3 months ago?), though I'm sure a number of people on this page already know that. DanHobley (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: that Nature review is here: [23]. You may need to have a Nature subscription/institutional access; I'm inside a uni network right now, so it's hard to check. Anyone looking to substantiate claims of current scientific consensus would do a lot worse than to work from this. Note it doesn't actually address human health risks specifically however. It's more environmentally focussed. It also occurs to me that the statement could be made even more robust by explicit recognition that some authors have questioned the existence of the consensus - e.g., by making it "There is broad—but not unanimous<refs>—scientific consensus that..." IMO main objections could be summarized by something like "Many objections are based around not evidence of risk, but testing methodologies which are argued to be inadequate to demonstrate risk in humans." DanHobley (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I would disagree with adding qualifications to the statement, since (as you probably know) consensus is never expected to be unanimous. :-) Emphasizing that disagreement exists, when that disagreement is not similarly emphasized in the highest-reliability sources we have, feels to me like undue weight. That said, the lead of the article does contain a summary of objections and more information could always be added there. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with this. DanHobley (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Jytdog has summarised this perfectly. The scientific consensus is that current products on the market are safe. That's what the sources say, that's what we say, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Solidly supported by the science, yes, by scientist depending on funding by the big agricultural firms. So I put some question marks at their results. Nothing known about the long term effects too. So I oppose the statement, as too many parts have question marks or unanswered questions. The Banner talk 10:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Banner, thanks for commenting. Nice to see you here. Quick response. You have made an interesting point. The scientific consensus is that the shorter-period studies that are used in current tox testing are sufficient for understanding the chronic risks. Scientists like Seralini who are not part of the consensus, and others, advocate very strongly that longer term studies are necessary. This position is outside the current scientific consensus. I have heard from folks in the EU GRACE project that the EU is going to put out an RFP to do a 2 year feeding study properly; if that RFP goes out and if the study results are robust and surprising, that study could move the scientific consensus. But right now, the scientific consensus is that the shorter term studies are sufficient. Jytdog (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I showed up here after a feedback-request. At a minimum the statement There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food should be amended to At present, after performing only short term research, the disputed scientific consensus is that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. It should be made clear that the mentioned consensus is disputed and the the scientific data used can be biased and selective. Plus that further research, especially long term, is necessary. The Banner talk 11:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:The Banner regarding wording. The "broad scientific consensus" may be that it is safe "in regards to current testing practices" but the broad scientific consensus is also that testing practices need to be not only more rigorous but to a lessor extent also independent of the biotech companies. The current wording implies that sufficient and independent testing is actually done before release. Wayne (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We are going off track here. Current regulatory standards are based on the current scientific consensus. Advocating for higher regulatory standards is an effort to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and is not what wikipedia is for. Please let's stay on topic. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The wording proposed by The Banner and supported by Wayne is not supported by reliable sources. There is simply no basis for a change to the lead, and I would argue that if anything parts of the article give too much weight to fringe positions and widely discredited studies. SpectraValor (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is remarkable how often unwelcome research results are hammered down as "fringe". Also quite remarkeble is that fact that in an article about "controversies", you can say that the "broad scientific consensus" is a controversy in itself! The Banner talk 21:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A fringe position is not defined by whether it is welcome or unwelcome to one constituency or another, but by the extent of support in the WP:RS. The most reliable sources available, issued by some of the most respected scientific and health groups in the world, support the statement in the RfC language, as Arc de Ciel, Jytdog, and others have pointed out. SpectraValor (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the alternative wording suggested by The Banner, as pushing a POV, and, in making an assessment based on the editor's evaluation of funding of the research, as being original research. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose alternative wording as it is not supported by reliable sources. We are to report what reliable sources state, not discuss why reliable sources are saying what they say. The reasons why are irrelevant as far as wikipedia and we are not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. BlackHades (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Please read this report, which explains in some detail why I disagree with the current statement. The first section of the report describes problems with sources given in support of the statement; the second section describes some other sources which indicate serious disagreements in the scientific community. Both sections address the statement as it is currently written, comparing genetically modified foods which are currently on the market to their conventional counterparts. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Your userpage musings are not a "report," and carry no weight. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thargor is right, that's not a report, it's merely an assemblage of your opinions seasoned with hand-picked excerpts from different sources. Calling it a "report" adds unnecessary importance to it. On a related note, why aren't you discussing the following sentence: "No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food", which is backed up by overwhelming evidence. BeŻet (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• The "no reports of ill effects" statement is also questionable. See, for example, allergic reactions to Starlink corn. (Some have argued that the allergic reactions were not due to the genetic modification process; whether or not this is true, these would be a clear instance of reported ill effects.) It is also very difficult to determine whether genetically modified foods are causing "ill effects" because they permeate the food supply and are generally unlabeled. groupuscule (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Surely the lack of any obvious ill effects in the US population given market saturation by GM foods is yet more evidence against your point?? (There must be a formal reference somewhere that argues this) DanHobley (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• The RfC specifically refers to the statement about "food on the market derived from GM crops." Where is StarLink corn on the market as food? That's not all: investigation of the Starlink flap concluded that there was no evidence of allergic reactions to the stabilized protein. Groupuscule's statements are off topic but lend support to the statement about broad consensus. SpectraValor (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I specifically mentioned Starlink in the Framing Statement. Starlink was never approved for human food - it was approved for animal feed, ending up being found in human food b/c the US crop commodities handling system is not built to keep GM and nonGM commodities separate (organic does have its own channel, has not reached "commodity" stage yet either). Starlink was removed from the market after problems emerged... so it is specifically excluded from the consensus statement b/c it is not currently marketed. Sigh. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that the statement is valid as per many of the above comments, per the high-reliability sources that support the statement (e.g. American Medical Association, Institute of Medicine, United States National Research Council, etc), and per numerous discussions across multiple talk pages. Of course I'm happy to continue discussion as long as it's based in policy, but many of the objections have not been. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• If anything GM food is probably safer than conventional food as it is more regulated. AIRcorn (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Do you think so? In many countries companies are not required to mention it on food labels. Why do companies resist GMO-food labelling? Something to hide? Too much unknown about the effects and/or safety? The Banner talk 10:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the only reason companies are resisting labelling their food is because they are worried it will give them a market disadvantage. I doubt it has anything to do with actual saftey, just perceived safety. AIRcorn (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this on topic, so it is a productive RfC, OK? Jytdog (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Can people please frame their opposition to the statement based on wikipedia policy, rather than their own original research. Complaints about companies has no bearing on this RfC, which is about a specific statement related to the scientific consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed. Why GM companies resist GMO food labeling has no bearing on this RfC. What would the argument for changing the text in question be as in relates to wikipedia policies? BlackHades (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with that, too. I only started paying attention to this page when this RfC started, and I'm already concerned about the amount of WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Extended comment

I want to return to the early part of this section. SpectraValor stated: "...When reliable sources are published stating that the current, overwhelming scientific consensus is illusory and has been shaped by fraudsters who are secretly or openly paid off by biotech companies, we can certainly address that in the article. But it still doesn't change that the current, broad consensus is verifiable." Here is a peer reviewed study which justified the claim alluded to: [ http://www.ijsaf.org/archive/16/1/lotter1.pdf ]. I quote again one of the relevant sections: "The biotechnology industry lobbied to have foods derived from genetically engi- neered plants classified as no different from food from conventionally bred plants. This was known as the policy, or doctrine, of ‘substantial equivalence’. There was resistance, however, from scientists within the FDA to the policy of non-regulation and substantial equivalence of transgenic foods. A 2004 paper (Freese and Schubert, 2004) showed that there were internal FDA memos documenting an overwhelming consensus among the agency’s scientists that transgenic crops can have unpre- dictable, hard-to-detect side-effects – allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases. They had urged their superiors to require long-term studies. According to the authors of the paper, these communications were ignored." The origins of cancer and other diseases are difficult to trace, and can take years...this is one of the concerns. But, as has been pointed out, this debate is largely political. One reason for GM opponents for being on the fringe, is that appointments to high position for scientists in universities and seed companies, largely depends on them going along with the status quo. This also affects the choice of news to report. Although I could not find a WP acceptable publisher for this information, a quick Google search using "revolving door Monsanto Govt. agencies" produced a long list which was duplicated on numerous sites. Some of this is reflected and cited on this GMFControversies page. I proposed moving the paragraph following the consensus statement, to allow a voice from the anti side to speak next following these strong, and debated (by many Wik. editors), statements. I left the consensus statement intact because after months? of debate about this, the side that does not like it has had difficulty assembling enough acceptable documentation to challenge the consensus statement itself. Perhaps if they (we, I should say) were more diligent in selection and kept our comments as minimal as possible, progress could be made on this. I like Banner's suggested alternative very much. I think the literature is out there to support it. Possibly it has already been cited here or in the archives of this talk page but alas, in between unsupportable citations and too-long comments (with all due respect for the work and intent). I would also like to note the position of these scientists: [ http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/60-why-genetically-engineered-food-is-dangerous-new-report-by-genetic-engineers ]. I quote: Dr Fagan said: “Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise, and outmoded technology. It can create unexpected toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops, that do not involve GM. “Over 75% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide. This has led to the spread of herbicide-resistant superweeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure of farmers and communities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies suggest a link between herbicide use and birth defects and cancer." This is where I see the debate really headed: shall we feed the world with chemical based agriculture or focus our scientific know how on agriculture which takes care of the earth and increases human health and the health of the soil (and lessens global warming)? And yes, this should be worked into the page itself. I ask you this, as only one editor has objected to my very slight change (reversing the position of the last two paragraphs in the leading section of the page), may I consider this a consensus of editors and go ahead and make it (see most recent discussion in the "Apparently no consensus" section).Catrinka Trabont (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Catrinka, for pete's sake. You are way off topic for the RfC. This section is not the place for writing about all GMO issues under the sun. It is a specific request for comments on the specific sentence provided, and nothing else. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I will comment briefly on the two links. The Lotter source is from a sociology journal, which is the wrong scientific field for discussions of food safety; the Earth Open Source statement is self-published and does not appear to be peer-reviewed. Also, saying "there is no reliable source for this information, but..." is a really bad sign. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Catrinka, please clarify the reasoning behind switching the two paragraphs. BlackHades (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add that your statement is directly copied from this source. Please paraphrase the text. Also, as others may have mentioned, the statement seems a bit biased (see WP:Neutrality). As you explained under the RFC, perhaps add that statement and include what GMFs are less safer than in the article. You need to inform the reader of exactly how safe GMFs actually are, in relation to conventional foods, as all readers may not be aware of how safe conventional foods are. --JustBerry (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment! 4 responses:

1) Please explain how the statement is biased, when it directly reflects a number of authoritative sources.

2) The statement ("There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food.")is already paraphrased, and is not copied from that source, which has the three following statements: "Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques"; "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." and "genetic modification technologies “are not per se more risky than…conventional plant breeding technologies."

3) There is no scientific basis for saying that any one currently marketed GM food is more or less risky than another currently marketed GM food - there is nothing to inform the reader with, on that score.

4) There is no scientific basis for saying that any one currently marketed GM food is more or less risky than another currently marketed conventional food - there is nothing to inform the reader with, on that score either.

Thanks again for commenting! Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Statement is reasonable - I'm not really sure what this RfC is seeking to ask, but if the question is "should we keep the sentence", I think the answer is yes. As repeated many times above, the vast majority of scientific opinion on this matter points to the general safety of GMO. Given such, I don't see anything wrong with the statement in question. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Statement is accurately stated and well supported. We should of course not use this article to belittle or dismiss the social and political concerns surrounding the matter, but we must accurately convey the nature of the objections. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Clarification on my earlier comment: My reasons for citing this article are to support the position that the consensus statement have some sort of modification.

This does not attempt to report on scientific data itself, but rather on how the idea of consensus on safety may have been arrived at through pressures outside of the scientists themselves. It is therefore an appropriate source, as coming from a sociology journal.[ http://www.ijsaf.org/archive/16/1/lotter1.pdf ]. I quote again just a small part of the relevant sections: "The biotechnology industry lobbied to have foods derived from genetically engineered plants classified as no different from food from conventionally bred plants. This was known as the policy, or doctrine, of ‘substantial equivalence’. There was resistance, however, from scientists within the FDA to the policy of non-regulation and substantial equivalence of transgenic foods. A 2004 paper (Freese and Schubert, 2004) showed that there were internal FDA memos documenting an overwhelming consensus among the agency’s scientists that transgenic crops can have unpre- dictable, hard-to-detect side-effects – allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases. They had urged their superiors to require long-term studies. According to the authors of the paper, these communications were ignored."Catrinka Trabont (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Dubious low-ranking journal from an unknown organisation by a freelance writer. The journal editors are sociologists, not scientists. Useless as a source. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So you accept neither analysis of the field from a qualified outsider nor literature reviews from within the field. Is your position that the only acceptable sources on this topic are non-peer-reviewed statements from institutional bodies such as the AAAS? Although you claim to emphasize the scientific over the political, the sources on which you rely tend towards the latter. groupuscule (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: the article I just cited: The International Journal of Sociology of Science and Food is published by the School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff University (UK) and the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters and the Lifelong Learning Society, Florida Atlantic University (USA). It "...provides a forum for debates about international issues related to food and agriculture, and welcomes contributions from the social sciences, including sociology, science and technology studies, human geography, political science, and consumer, management and environmental studies...All articles published in this journal have undergone internal editorial scrutiny and external, triple-blind peer review." It is the official publication of the Research Committee on Sociology of Agriculture and Food (RC-40)of the International Sociological Association (ISA).

You might consider reading it. Catrinka Trabont (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that the first paragraph attempts to assert the existence of "a flood of evidence," I don't think you can claim it doesn't attempt to address scientific data. There seem to be similar appeals to scientific evidence or data in every other paragraph. You might consider reading it. ;-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Statement is reasonable per the discussions above. That does not mean that large scale reliable sources with different opinions should not be mentioned, but WP:FRINGE should be kept in mind. Andrew³²⁷ 15:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Statement is accurate That does not mean of course that we may someday find something wrong with them, but the same applies to anything people eat. In fact cooking oil, one of the major GMO products, does not even have GMO molecules in it. Nor is there any theoretical reason why GMO would be more harmful than non-GMO. It is known however that virtually everything made with GMO or from animals fed GMO is bad for you, but that is another issue. TFD (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Although specific to crops modified for insect resistence, this quote is closer to the prevailing consensus than the current quote in the WP article.

  Scientists do not have full knowledge of the risks and benefits of any insect management strategies. Bt plants were deployed with the expectation that the risks would be lower than current or alternative technologies and that the benefits would be greater. Based on the data to date, these expectations seem valid. - DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145309

  Based on the many peer reviewed articles I've seen on GM safety this quote [my bold] is probably the best that can be said for GM safety. Other objections to the definitive "broad scientific consensus" are found in many many others such as Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops (Trends in Biotechnology Volume 21, Issue 10, October 2003, Pages 439–444) which holds that Substantial Equivalence is "controversial" and hampers "the actual safety assessment" and Seeking clarity in the debate over the safety of GM foods (Nature Volume 402, December 1999, pages 575-576) holds that GM food regulation is "unsatisfactory" due to the "assumption" that "genetic engineering does not differ from conventional selective breeding." Wayne (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as a brief comment, both of these sources are more than ten years old; "to date" here means "as of 2002." I'm not aware of whether there was a consensus at that time (there may have been), but even if there were not, more recent sources take precedence. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Source fidelity

I may not have said this as clearly before, but there are currently 6 sources cited to support the statement: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food". I'd like someone to go through each source and draw out the quote that they think supports this statement. Here's my first attempt:

1. (AAAS) is easy as the statement is largely drawn from this source: "Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques"
2. (AMA): the results says "Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature. However, a small potential for adverse events exists, due mainly to horizontal gene transfer, allergenicity, and toxicity" and goes on to say "the FDA’s science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The Council supports this science-based approach, and believes that thorough pre-market safety assessment and the FDA’s requirement that any material difference between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts be disclosed in labeling, are effective in ensuring the safety of bioengineered food. To better characterize the potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that per-market [sic] safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement". The document does not contain 'consensus' anywhere.
3. (WHO): this document is undated with no author, which I think counts strongly against it. The only use of the word consensus is in this sentence: "On issues such as labelling and traceability of GM foods as a way to address consumer concerns, there is no consensus to date". It says specifically that "No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market" (a very different statement than relative risk) and also that "Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of technology without antibiotic resistance genes has been encouraged by a recent FAO/WHO expert panel" (no elaboration on how many such products currently remain on the international marketplace).
4. (NRC): a search for consensus shows 3 hits; these all point to titles of references. I'm pretty sure I added this source to the article a few years ago and my recollection of what I read from it does not support the statement. Note that it does say that a regulatory regime which is inconsistent between different methods of modification (including conventional) is unsupportable, but this is a very different statement.
5. EU Directorate-General: the word consensus is used a few times, but never corresponding to consensus about lack of health impacts. For example the conclusion states: "Consensus was reached that a rigorous science-based risk assessment of the environmental impact, and of the possible effects on human health of foods derived from GM crops only, is not sufficient to gain public support for the introduction of this new food production technology into society".
6. I won't go through these sources since the prior sources did not look promising for support.

Do I have contrary sources? Well, yes. I'm not going to list them all here. I haven't reviewed them super-closely, but I have a few in my notes. People have already pointed to recent literature reviews by Domingo, etc. There are several such articles published in high-quality, mainstream food toxicology journals. There are a few high-profile PhD geneticists on record as questioning the safety and emphasizing uncertainty (GM Science Review First Report from the UK also seems to emphasize uncertainty). Why these have been rejected as essentially not counting or fringe (e.g., equivalent to Richard Lindzen and Energy & Environment in the global warming world) is not entirely clear. I've already said a few times that I think it seems quite plausible to me that tweaked EPSP or Cry1Ac seem unlikely to cause problems. But there is more than just that Roundup Ready and Bt on the market, and I haven't seen a lot of discussion on the various other products. It also seems that the experts, when pressed, admit that they don't actually know all the details of what triggers allergenicity, and so just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't. They can look for similarities, but they can't make absolute guarantees without in vivo testing, which doesn't occur in humans. Now, admittedly maybe any occurrence would be super-obvious and not multifactorial like most modern diseases. I don't really know, and haven't seen a good discussion. Of course, conventional food may also have obscure allergens or issues which is why the statement is OK, right? Well, the statement says the risk is 'equivalent'. What is the probability that a dozen currently-approved GMOs have identical health risks to their non-GMO equivalents? Well, do they even have non-GMO equivalents? I'm not sure they really do - I would be surprised if there were non-GMO equivalents to the GMOs which were isogenic except for that single modified trait. So it's really just a weird statement. I get that it is in the abstract, in a very general philosophical sense. I realize that the AAAS board made it (in a political context, and I'm not sure the board has any toxicologist members) but that doesn't mean it really makes sense. One of the methods in conventional breeding is mutagenesis, which the NRC lists on page 64 as having more unintended effects. II | (t - c) 06:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the concerns you are raising seem to me to deal with situations that lie outside of the very specific wording of the text we are considering, according to the "framing statement" at the top of this RfC. It's true that the sources deal with uncertainties about things that reside outside of the scope of the framing statement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are overly concerned with the word "consensus." Personally, I don't consider there to be much difference between saying "There is a broad scientific consensus that X is true" and simply "X is true," at least when talking about a scientific statement as we are here. To the extent that any of your comments can be addressed by making this change in the lead, I don't think they really apply. As a result, I don't think you can conclude that the sources are weak (or that the statement is "mainly drawn from the AAAS source").

I'm very short on time right now, but I will produce the quotes from the EU source since it is a lengthy document and I'm the one who originally added it.

• "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." (pg. 17)
• "These activities provide at least equal assurance of the safety of these foods compared to conventional counterparts, provided these GM products have been approved by the EU and the national food safety evaluation procedures." (pg. 133)

The quote you cited does not appear to be relevant to the statement on scientific consensus, as it addresses the issue of public acceptance rather than scientific acceptance. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• First off, the AAAS statement does not use the word consensus, and yet I noted that it does basically support the statement. So I'm actually setting a lower bar here to start with, and the EU quote that you presented meets that bar. So we have at least two sources which are very close to the statement. However, I do think it is important that the sources use consensus: Arc, there is a difference between these three statements: (1) "I don't consider there to be much difference", (2) "there is not much difference" and (3) "there is a consensus that there is not much difference". On Wikipedia you'll see a lot of people writing in the style of (2), but that doesn't mean they are saying (3). As you may have experienced in your career, writing (1) in formal papers is often discouraged (see Should I Use “I”? at UNC). That doesn't automatically mean that whenever a scientist writes something, they are saying that the statement is uncontroversial and that a consensus exists among their peers. To read that into a statement the word consensus would be classic original research as we need the statement to be "directly supported". In fact this type of question has come up periodically on Wikipedia, where editors try to construct a consensus by stacking together a lot of sources with certain declarative statements and ignoring the sources which don't support their statement. We have a section on it called WP:SYNTH. Now, based on the fact that you used (1), I suspect you recognize that there is room for disagreement here and I hope you'll consider this and read WP:OR carefully. II | (t - c) 16:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see SYNTH happening here. Given that the AAAS source seems to be relatively noncontroversial for our purposes here, I'd like to point to a further direct quote from that source:

"Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”"

There, within that single source, is a statement that, in its plain English meaning, is tantamount to "broad scientific consensus". There is no SYNTH or any other kind of original research in reading the source that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that with the quotation presented, the AAAS statement can be reasonably summarized as broad scientific consensus. So there is one source which I think reasonably supports the statement. The other sources are debatable and in my opinion pretty iffy. I'm not sure that the AAAS source is noncontroversial, and I'm not sure that they are accurately portraying what the cited organizations have said (and the AAAS release only has 2 citations), but I'd rather not get into that can of worms right now. II | (t - c) 20:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I made my comment with respect to the word "consensus" specifically because of the issue which Tryptofish has now pointed out more directly. :-) It seems to me that your evaluation of the sources was largely based on searches for that specific word. I do consider its use here justified, but I will avoid commenting on this as it would involve starting a policy meta-discussion, and to me it's just not a very important part of the statement. Like I said, I see no problem with changing "There is a broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food" to "Food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food" and this seems like it would address most of your comments. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Specific use of the phrase "broad scientific consensus" does exist repeatedly in the sources listed so I'm not sure what the argument is here. BlackHades (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you point to this phrase? Also, Arc, we have only nailed down that 2 of the sources actually support that statement. The question then is why to use the statement that these 2 sources use rather than any alternative wording. II | (t - c) 05:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure which 2 sources you're referring to, but here are some of the sources cited to the statement in question that mention scientific consensus:

"There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." --Ronald, Pamela (2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics 188 (1): 11–20.

"As the journal Nature editorialized in 1992, a broad scientific consensus holds that ‘the same physical and biological laws govern the response of organisms modified by modern molecular and cellular methods and those produced by classical methods. ...[Therefore] no conceptual distinction exists between genetic modification of plants and microorganisms by classical methods or by molecular techniques that modify DNA and transfer genes."--Miller, Henry (2009). "A golden opportunity, squandered". Trends in biotechnology 27 (3): 129–130.

“The scientific consensus is that the food product in this survey, GM-corn-fed beef, is equivalent to the conventional beef product.”--Li, Quan; McCluskey, Jill; Wahl, Thomas (2004). "Effects of information on consumers’ willingness to pay for GM-corn-fed beef". Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 2 (2): 1–16.

“Many reviews by national and international science organizations, and reviews synthesizing the scientific knowledge on GM crops on human health show a wide consensus among the scientific community that currently available GM foods are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts and suitable for human consumption”--Bett, Charles; Ouma, James Okuro; Groote, Hugo De (August 2010). "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food". Food Policy 35 (4): 332–340.

I would say current statement in question, very accurately describes these sources. BlackHades (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I do dislike the fact that there are so many citations bunched together as it does give the appearance of synthesis and in my experience is a red flag that original research is occuring. I would much rather spell out what the sources are saying. If we have general agreement that the AAAS one is the best (and as it covers the other organisations already as Tryptofish has pointed out) why not just use that one. At least in the lead, which should really just be repeating information sourced in the body anyway. The second paragraph describes the consensus already and uses many of the same sources so I would consider removing the buched cites from the statement there too. AIRcorn (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, although a hunch about a red flag does not actually mean that OR is occurring. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both comments. I would actually have removed most of the sources a while ago per CITEKILL if this weren't a topic of debate here. Perhaps at some point, we could put some in a separate talk page section where they can be easily referred to in future. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• The AAAS report, published in the weeks leading up to California's vote on GMO labeling, is unacceptable as a source. Though it may be the "best" at arguing for consensus on GMO safety, it is not of sufficiently high quality for our purposes here. It's not peer reviewed. It barely even gives evidence. It's a politicized statement issued by a small group of people, and has been described as such in other sources. The Council for Responsible Genetics issued a formal objection to it. Michele Simon wrote an article of substantial criticism, including the following:

Where did this handy list come from? The "No" campaign listed three of these four groups -- the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences -- in the official California voter guide as concluding GMO foods are safe. But in fact, the World Health Organization says that ongoing risk assessments are needed and that "GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." Meanwhile, the American Medical Association favors pre-market safety testing, which the FDA does not require. How did a science organization miss all of that?

But back to the suspicious timing of the statement's release: Who, exactly, instigated it? The statement says it's from the AAAS board of directors. Who are they? The board chair, Nina Federoff has an impressive pedigree, including a stint as science adviser to Condoleezza Rice. Curiously, Federoff has been listed as a leading scientist on the "No on 37" website since June, where she is quoted as being "passionately opposed to labeling." Maybe her previous board membership with Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company helped drive that passion.

(Note that Simon identifies the very same pattern of questionable citations as we have seen invoked on Wikipedia itself.) There is no reason to believe that this statement reflects an actual consensus among scientists, nor have we heard a convincing argument for why it might. groupuscule (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Third party comment - Journalistic comment article by a lawyer and objections from an NGO do not have any effect on a claim of "scientific consensus". DanHobley (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• What do you mean by this? How can one NGO's word be taken as absolute truth, and the criticism of another ignored? What about the many peer-reviewed journal articles which contradict the consensus claim? The AAAS report is a low-quality source, both by perennial Wikipedia standards and in the specific opinion of outside experts. Have you seen anyone provide a good analysis otherwise? groupuscule (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's reasonable to present those contrary sources as representing the contrary view. However, the statement that the AAAS statement is not peer-reviewed is simply not accurate. It's a summary of peer-reviewed findings, summarized by the peer-reviewers. The reason that it presents little original data is that it is a secondary source, summarizing the scientific literature. It really does represent the consensus of the scientific establishment. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

AAAS Board of Directors would be a very high quality source. An opinion piece by a lawyer speaking on the safety of GM food is not. BlackHades (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"It's a politicized statement issued by a small group of people, and ..." The AAAS is the largest scientific organisation in the world. They publishes one of the most highly respected general science journals in the world (the other being Nature). There statement represents the consensus position. Statements from an anti-GMO group are irrelevant, and I am surprised that you are quoting them and expecting us to give that any legitimacy (and they are misrepresenting the situation as you are still doing). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional material

some aspects that need to fleshed out in the lead, which are currently missing from the article entirely, but which might help with clarifying this matter, include the precautionary principle, the Cartagena Protocol and the Codex Alimentarius. We should note that European regulation is markedly different from the US - where the industry is essentially self-regulating and has done most of the safety testing itself. Europe has traditionally erred on the side of caution and upholds a case-by-case approach. With regard to the American situation the SAGE A-Z on Green Culture offers a succinct overview:

"In 1992, the FDA adopted a policy whereby GE foods were presumed 'generally recognized as safe'. Similarly, the FAO and the WHO subscribed to the concept of substantial equivalence, which regards GE food products to be as safe as their conventional counterparts. Safety resting through the FDA has been documented by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest(CSPI) and others to he inadequate. Studies noted that biotechnology companies frequently have not released the requested information, there were undetected errors in technical data, and the FDA had a lack of necessary authority in the review and regulation of GE research and crops. Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have improved with the global consensus forwarded by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. These principles dictate a pre-market assessment, performed on a case-by-case basis, which includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects. However, peer-reviewed studies found that despite these guidelines, risk assessment of GE foods has still not followed a defined prototype."

The matter of the original 1992 FDA ruling (which Monsanto was involved in) is the root of much of the suspicion and skepticism (especially in Europe) surrounding the food safety issue, and this is not helped by claims (attributed to James Maryanski) that the decision to avoid applying a GMO specific regulatory regime was motivated by politics rather than science. US economic interest, big business, and political careerism has muddied this debate from the very beginning, made worse by the fact that the bio-tech sector in the US was regulating itself and carrying out most of the testing for well over a decade after the introduction of GMO food crops. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

About [24] and [25], I'd like to explain. First, I think that the edits were rather bold in the WP:BRD sense, in the context of the ongoing discussions here, and might be better subject to further discussion. But more specifically, I'm concerned that it is WP:SYNTH to go from what it says in the first source, the one from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, to saying, sourced to the subsequent sources such as the AAAS, that "Studies adhering to the principal of substantial equivalence are central to the broad scientific consensus that...". Assigning that role to the analyses of studies about GMO safety seems to me to be an editorial opinion, but I'd welcome hearing from other editors about these questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree this is WP:SYNTH. Unless there is reliable source that links these two together, it shouldn't be there. I also don't know why changes were made when there is an ongoing RfC on the issue and the overwhelming position among editors so far is to keep the statements as is. BlackHades (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Cotton is not a food

The title of this article is 'Genetically modified food controversies'. Cotton is not a food, yet there are currently some 45 uses of the word cotton spread throughout the article. the section #India is almost exclusively about cotton.

It seems to me that the vast majority of references to cotton, and other non-food transgenics, should be purged out of this article to a new article 'Genetically modified non-food controversies', or to an appropriate existing article.

The presence of so many references to cotton only serves to cloud (could this be deliberate?) what is already an extremely cloudy subject.

This article has 'food' in the title for a reason: transgenic food products may affect human health; it is far less likely that transgenic cotton will do so.

Cricobr (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! The accusations you make, however, are most unwelcome, and you are incorrect about cotton and food. Cottonseed from cotton is used for oil which is used for cooking oil and is in many processed/prepared foods. It is true that there is vanishingly little protein or DNA from the genetic modification in the oil, which is highly purified lipids, but nonetheless products from GM cotton are in the food supply. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Milo from Catch 22 agrees =) a13ean (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I would consider expanding the scope a little bit by changing food to crops. Nothing in the body needs to be changed and I don't think we go into animals produced for food (I don't think any are yet - althougth the salmon can't be far away). Maybe there is a nother word that can be used to cover things like Amflora and AquAdvantage salmon. Perhaps organisms, although then you have to include the insulin producing bacteria. AIRcorn (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

recent addition by semi, prefacing the consensus statement

• Continued from #Additional material, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I think that the content added by semi to lede, prior to the prefacing the consensus statement is good and useful -- after it was revised a few times - and is not WP:SYN. Whether or not to keep this content is a separate discussion from the RfC above which is focused on the consensus statement, so I wanted to open a new section on it. Text as it ended up before last deletion is here:

Safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies is based in part on evaluation of whether the food is "substantially equivalent" to non-genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption.(ref name=OECD)"Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles" (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved 21 June 2009.(/ref)

To say a bit more, I think it is useful because it provides more context as to how scientists arrive at the consensus, and provides a useful link to the regulatory article - IMO opponents of GMOs are generally ignorant of the regulatory work that is done. The claim that it is WP:SYN is hard to deal with - but in my view it is simply true that the safety claim is ultimately a regulatory one, and that it is just common sense to provide this brief explanation. I may be missing something and am open to hearing that. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The statement itself is perfectly reasonable, but it just shouldn't be grouped together with the "broad consensus" statement that is currently in discussion in RfC. I believe this is the concern Tryptofish was raising, and I would agree here. None of the sources cited for the "broad consensus" statement is in a way that directly links it with substantial equivalence. If the discussion of substantial equivalence was in its own separate paragraph in the lead, I don't think it would be an issue. BlackHades (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason why this would be included in the lead. I can not assess the source because the link does not work, IRWolfie- (talk)

18:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that Jytdog, "gets" what I am trying to do here because what the fervent "anti-fringe" activists are missing is that this lone, isolated, single statement, does not serve the purposes of our lead, and it is being presented as a means of suggesting that all this talk of "controversy" is sheer folly; when it clearly isn't, because we have an article dedicated to it. I see double standards here. Why is there an avoidance of mentioning how this consensus was arrived at, including the means that were employed in getting there? No reason has been offered as to why the topics mentioned aboveshould be excluded from the article, and consequentially, the lead. It's not a matter of denying consensus exists, it's a question of properly explaining what this is all about to our readers (so they can better understand the topic). Semitransgenic _talk. 18:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You appear to acknowledge that the synthesis was intended? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

you appear to be confusing fantasy with reality. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie is correct. You basically just admitted here you were doing synthesis. BlackHades (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm ambivalent about the question. My concern about SYNTH was actually about an earlier version of the language, and as noted by Jytdog, the page's edit history shows some edits I made (along with a revision made by Semitransgenic in response to my earlier comments) that addressed my earlier concerns to my satisfaction. The issue at this point, and I do think that BlackHades raises a valid point about it, is whether having the sentence about substantial equivalence right before the sentence about the scientific consensus implies some original research by way of juxtaposition: suggesting that substantial equivalence is background information for the subsequent source material, when maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. Would a solution be, sort of per IRWolfie, to have something about substantial equivalence lower on the page, but not here? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

a "solution" that ignores the chronology of how safety testing and the science associated with it developed (something that continues to change/improve as GE technology evolves) is not going to improve the article, and still no mention of the Cartagena Protocol or regional differences in regulation policy. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Semi... The article covers all these controversies. There are a lot of legitimate controversies about GM crops and about food from GMOs, and there some illegitimate (!) ones, from a scientific perspective. When I say "legitimate" I mean that there are real issues on both sides and reasonable people can disagree. There are also a few issues where there is no legit scientific controversy -- two of them are whether currently marketed food from GMOs is relatively safe, and another is whether bt is responsible for bee colony collapse disorder. The article discusses those two, but not as though there is more than one side with scientific validity. On both, the article makes it clear that there is a scientific consensus on the issue, and explains the FRINGE positions against the consensus. This is as I understand it how Wikipedia treats controversies.... I do think your intro to the food safety statement is helpful. Scientific consensus supports investigating substantial equivalence as a starting point for considering safety. I don't think it is a bad thing to preface the foods safety question with an explanation of SE. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

the isolated sentence on scientific consensus in the lead is problematic not because of what it says, it's problematic because it lacks sufficient contextualisation when it's clear that some could be provided, it looks like it's there to make a point, not to help our readers understand where this statement actually comes from. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Then you should be using the citations that already exists to expand on the scientific consensus statement. Or find another source that discusses scientific consensus. Not try to do synthesis yourself. BlackHades (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

just in case people here think I'm making shit up for the hell of it, from Safety assessment of genetically modified food crops (2011):

Previous studies employed for assessing the safety of chemical additives used in food industry, involved testing single chemical components. But this is not feasible for testing GM foods. Therefore, an alternative approach was required for the safety assessment of GM foods. First food safety assessment report(14) described comparative approach and has laid the basis

for later safety evaluation strategies. This led to the development of the concept of substantial equivalence. Substantial equivalence (SE) emphasizes that safety assessment is not a parameter which can be evaluated on an absolute scale. Instead it measures whether the GM food is safe as its traditional counterpart if such(55) counterpart exists or to an earlier approved GM variety (15). SE analysis includes three levels - complete, partial and not at all15. Complete - substantially equivalent i.e. the GM food is similar to the native counterpart, partial - substantially equivalent except for the inserted gene and ‘not at all’ means that the GM food is not at all equivalent to its counterpart and a step by step evaluation of the transgenic food is mandatory (15,16). GM and non-GM counterpart used for the comparative studies should be subjected to similar environmental conditions to avoid genotypic and phenotypic differences not related to the transformation process. The non-GM counterpart should be non-transgenic, isogenic line to the GM line. Comparative studies should take into account agronomic, morphological, genetic and compositional aspects in order to make an objective assessment. Further, attention should be paid to the choice of comparator, the design of field trials, and statistical analysis of the generated data in order to obtain authentic results.

Safety assessment strategies involve an integrated, case-by-case approach to be used in the allergenicity assessment of GM foods. The safety evaluation protocols mainly focus on, whether the original source of the GM food protein is allergenic or the GM food protein is similar to any known or reported allergens and lastly whether the GM food protein can remain intact after digestion. Additional testing includes the use of specific immunological methods or animal models, for further evaluation. GM foods are assessed on the basis of several guidelines issued by international scientific organizations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). With the advancements in the field of science and technology new risk assessment techniques are

evolving.

scientific consensus didn't arrive out of thin air. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Substantial equivalence is the starting point on the assessment of the safety of GM food. It is not the end point regarding safety and approval of GM food and nowhere in your source does it even discuss the broad scientific consensus in question. You essentially already admitted you were going for synthesis above by trying to link it with "broad scientific consensus". BlackHades (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

you are suffering from denial, but that's OK, you'll deal with it. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)