Talk:Séralini affair

missing the point?

This page is about the Seralini affair. In other words the controversy and bad dealings, improper actions, conflict of interests etc... from both sides surrounding the Seralini et al study. Yet you guys removed this? Conflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: the example of an herbicide and a GMO from the page? Seriously? I think you guys are missing the whole point and topic of the page and actually engaged in the "Conflicts of interests, and censorship" that is part of the Seralini affair. This page clearly has become part of that scandal. Everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath and realise this is wikipedia, an online reference guide. Not a platform for POV pushing, and certainly not supposed to be engaging in the very same unscrupulous and unethical actions of a scandal that it references. This link needs put back..and actually probably needs discussed more in the article. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13Redddbaron (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

please comment on content, not contributor. the source you mention is from one of the participants and it is not reliable for anything other than for he-said-she-said-like content. Per the policy, WP:NPOV, particularly the section of NPOV on controversial subjects - Wikipedia stands with the scientific consensus and discusses things from that perspective. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example of what I mean. A scientist who doesn't agree with the conclusions of Seralini et al the study, but has commentary on The Seralini affair which is not the same thing.

The republication of the Séralini study raises a number of important issues to do with the scientific process. It must be noted that the paper being published is identical to the first one, which was initially attacked on methodological bases.

The paper is being republished because the authors feel it was unfairly retracted from Food and Chemical Toxicology. I think that the problem here is the controversial nature of the original paper.

This was a publication that gave some interesting results, but that needed to be replicated with larger numbers of rats in the experiment and, perhaps, a more statistically robust analysis. The paper was, in my mind, inconclusive, but pointed a direction in which future research could go.

After much public discussion the paper was withdrawn by the journal against the wishes of the authors. This is unusual. Even more unusual is the notice of retraction that states that the study was inconclusive, but there was no flaw or fraud in the original paper. Inconclusive data is no reason to retract a peer-reviewed and published paper.

The republication of this paper, and the rebuttals presented, have not changed my opinion. I am not convinced that the original paper indicates any danger of genetically modified food. I do think, however, that this research needs to be continued.

I am also convinced that retracting the original paper in this unusual way has not served the scientific process well. All good science is a debate, and one that should be held publicly in published journals. Only through open publication, replication and exchange of scientific data can we use science effectively.

Controversial studies should not be buried because of public argument. They should be investigated, repeated, and new data published to either disprove or support the original findings. Only then do we get a clear and robust argument.

Peter Dearden, associate professor and director of Genetics Otago, Laboratory for Evolution and Development at the University of Otago

This quote any many like it can be found in many secondary sources. Just pick one.Redddbaron (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

please cite specific sources so we can discuss them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2014/06/25/controversial-gm-study-republished-experts-respond/Redddbaron (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

blogs are generally not reliable sources. And believe me, zillions of blog sites commented on this controversy while it was going on and afterwards. There is no end to the tit for tat back and forth. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a "blog", it is a media resource that does not take sides on the issue. It is both accurate and bias free.Redddbaron (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you are right on that. it is a useful roundup of opinion. i just read through that whole thing - it is basically a rehash of the 1st controversy. nobody changed their mind, but now there is more discussion of the controversy over the retraction. there is no need to rehash everyhing. i changed the last section accordingly. i think the quote that was stuck in there was a bit of piling on so i removed it. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Much better. See what you think of the change I just made.Redddbaron (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

massive copyvio. hell no. again there is no point in rehashing everything. there is nothing new in that site except criticism of the journals from every side imaginable. no new issues there. nothing new to write. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah..I actually agree. After I posted it I saw myself too much. What about this? I started where the quote refers to the republication..which is the topic of that section. Significantly shorter and more to the topicRedddbaron (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

ok, let's step back. you are still pushing to get the original idea that you stated in your first post into the article. please stop. the seralini affair is primarily about a) the scandalous way the publication of the study was publicized and b) the unsupportable nature of its conclusions. the article focuses on those issues. everything else - his defense, the retraction by the journal and the criticism for that, and the republication and the criticism that followed that, is all a side show. do you see that? Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely I see that part. How could I miss it. A whole page of it. But very little to no mention at all of the scandalous unethical behavior of many in the scientific community who had undisclosed conflicts of interest. One fairly level headed quote at the very bottom of the page that explains how this is harmful to the whole scientific process surely is warranted. I even started at "The republication of this paper, and the rebuttals presented, have not changed my opinion." so it couldn't be taken out of context.Redddbaron (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

see that is where we have a problem. "the scandalous unethical behavior of many in the scientific community who had undisclosed conflicts of interest." is your POV, I get that. That is not the mainstream scientific perspective. Seralini acted scandalously and over-reached in his conclusions in the paper. The circus of a press conference where he publicized his irresponsible conclusions - where no journalist had the chance to review the work with other scientists and prepare questions, where he had huge pictures of rat tumors (although it was "not a cancer study"), and where he announced a book and a movie about his work, and all timed for the Calfornia referendum, was just a perversion of the scientific process. And yes he got a firestorm of criticism for that. Yes some of that was perhaps too harsh. Sure, some of the critics had financial interests. But it is the studies flaws that is the mainstream story. The focus of this article. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a referenced fact, not a POV, important people that were named had undisclosed conflicts of interest and were commenting or acting in this whole affair critical to Seralini. It is an ethical violation. The POV pushing for this article comes into play when all mention of it is excluded. I picked the absolute mildest citation about it I could possibly find. It barely mentions it and in the gentlest of manner and without any weighted language at all. Something very difficult to find in this highly charged issue. This is about content or lack there of. Cherry picking only one side and excluding anything that doesn't fit ones personal views is just as bad a way to POV push as piling on. The quote I gave comments on both the republishing and the commentary published at the same time. It is a fair assessment. It needs to be included. And if not the quote in a block quote, then what Dr.Peter Dearden said, but summarised and cited to him and others who also have that opinion. There are plenty more.Redddbaron (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

please provide a very reliable source that the mainstream response was primarily driven by COI. strong claims need strong evidence. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do I need a VERY reliable source when it is not an opinion but something anyone can easily check? For example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23430588?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn There is the criticism...... Here is the disclosure: Author information

1Departament de Medicina, Universitat de Lleida-Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain. Nothing about a COI mentioned. and here is one of the the COIs:http://www.google.com/patents/US6096523 Wayne Parrott is both a Co author and a patent holder with a fiscal COI. He has other COIs as well. and other coauthors have similar undisclosed COIs but this was easy enough to find by anyone fact checking Seralini commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redddbaron (talk • contribs) 22:40, October 4, 2014‎

• This discussion has become a wall of text, but if I understand correctly, the main issue being discussed is the lengthy block quote from Dr. Dearden. It seems to me that he is discussing both sides of the coin, as it were, and as such, he isn't really expressing a clear position on the controversy so much as saying there were a lot of problems with the paper but it is good to have a discussion of those problems. I'm having trouble seeing what it would really add to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The context is, censorship. Seeing as how the original study was retracted and any unethical behavior by people with undisclosed COI's covered up. Of course Dearden takes the high road and instead of saying it is unethical to have been retracted...he states it is good the study was republished. It is more tactful than Seralini's commentary. Seeing as how it is more tactful, it is also more appropriate here.Redddbaron (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

i said this before but let me try again. redbaron you are making an extraordinary claim, that the scientific establishment came down on Seralini due to COI. You need a strong source to back that up. A very reliable source. Not some guy on his blog. Please put one up or drop this argument. (for instance, it is mainstream knowledge today that smoking is bad. But that was not true in say 1950. Real evidence began to build, and organization and after organization joined in, with the tide really turning with the Surgeon General's report in 1964, so that by the late 1960s the scientific consensus was very clear that the smoking was bad. (see [http://ash.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/full-report.pdf this report, esp 19-22). The Surgeon General's report of 1964 was an extraordinary claim, made by very strong source, that the scientific consensus was changing. Very strong.. appropriate for an extraordiary claim. And people took it seriously. ) So - you are saying that the scientific community has just buried a valid study with valid conclusions. Please bring your very strong source. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not making that claim. Nor does the content I added make that claim. Not even does Seralini make that claim. Only an extremist would claim that COI problems from a couple dozen key people = scientific establishment. Even Seralini is careful to make specific well referenced claims about specific people. And Deardon doesn't even go that far, calling it "unusual" which is VERY diplomatic and tactful.Redddbaron (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

i am sorry but that makes no sense. the key thing here, as trypto wrote above, is that there is nothing new after the republication. Jytdog (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere where Dearden uses the word "censorship". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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

I had replaced this line that has no citation to back it up:

In the paper and in the press conference, Séralini claimed that the results showed that Roundup-resistant maize and RoundUp are toxic.

with:

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

I included citation to he republished article for easy verfication. Jytdog reverted it here with the comment "quote from Seralini is UNDUE. please discuss on Talk. Thankss." I see no problem reducing the length of the Séralini quote or accurately paraphrasing it. The study clearly did not conclude as stated above that "Roundup-resistant maize and RoundUp are toxic," a claim that is often made that is both misleading and untrue. David Tornheim (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Last two paragraphs of the conclusion:

"In conclusion, it was previously known that glyphosate consumption in water above authorized limits may provoke hepatic and kidney failures (EPA). The results of the study presented here clearly demonstrate that lower levels of complete agricultural glyphosate herbicide formulations, at concentrations well below officially set safety limits, induce severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic and kidney disturbances. Similarly, disruption of biosynthetic pathways that may result from overexpression of the EPSPS transgene in the GM NK603 maize can give rise to comparable pathologies that may be linked to abnormal or unbalanced phenolic acids metabolites, or related compounds. Other mutagenic and metabolic effects of the edible GMO cannot be excluded. This will be the subject of future studies, including transgene and glyphosate presence in rat tissues. Reproductive and multigenerational studies will also provide novel insights into these problems. This study represents the first detailed documentation of longterm deleterious effects arising from the consumption of a GM tolerant maize and of R, the most used herbicide worldwide.

Altogether, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work confirm the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes. We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and formulated pesticides must be evaluated very carefully by long term studies to measure their potential toxic effects."

The conclusion of the scientific paper is that GMOs Roundup-resistant maize and roundup are toxic. Based on that conclusion, Seralini proposed that longer studies must be done for all GMOs and pesticides. The first are scientific conclusions; the second is a policy recommendation he is repeating for the Nth time - he's been saying since before he started to his own studies; here he is leveraging his scientific conclusions to gain support for his proposal. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC) (amend to match article content and better match what I just quotedJytdog (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC))

Looking at this again, I disagree. This portion quoted above did not say GMOs and Roundup are "toxic" in any general sense. That is an overstatement. The paper was very specific about what was observed: At the levels given to the specific rats (which, yes are known to develop tumors, just as the Monsanto study used), set "at concentrations well below officially set safety limits" that "longterm deleterious effects" were observed. The study acknowledged that this was the "first" study to show this for these levels and indicated that further long term study was required. To make the bold assertion that "Séralini claimed that the results showed that Roundup-resistant maize and RoundUp are toxic" is far too strong. Clearly the study says that further study is required to measure "potential toxic effects" (emphasis added), and hence this is not a FINAL or CONCLUSIVE claim that toxicity is certain. And that is exactly what other countries are doing in response to this study. So again, the language overstates Seralini's conclusions and this should be corrected in the Wiki article to reflect what the study actually says, not some exaggerated claim which possibly was reported in the sensationalist media. David Tornheim (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

David if you look at our article, every major regulatory agency said that this study did not change a thing for them. sorry i was a bit sloppy in my summary above, which i've amended. The content in article does reflect the conclusion of paper that Roundup-resistant maize and roundup are toxic and that seralini proposes/recommends that all GMOs and all pesticides be tested for longer terms..Jytdog (talk)

Lfstevens's 07:49, 18 March 2015‎ Revision -- IMPROVEMENT but still lacks NPOV

Lfstevens: Thank you for the above revision. It is definitely an improvement to the article. However, it lacks NPOV, because it overemphasizes the criticism of the study by neglecting to mention that the Seralini study was specifically designed to be a long term version of the shorter 90-day study performed by Monsanto to justify the safety of the maize, and that the Monsanto study used the same number of rats and same kind of rats--clearly a double-standard. Both Seralini and the ENSSER make this very clear. This should both be in the lead and in the article body, rather than buried near the bottom of the article in a short phrase the ENSSER claimed double standards. David Tornheim (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Please offer concrete changes with their sources so we can consider them per policy and guideline. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

David, thanks for noticing. I'm just copyediting at the moment. Feel free to supply a reliable source with notable info. After I finish the ce, I'll look at it.

OK, done for now. Feedback encouraged. Comments:

• Lots of link work
• Removed lots of dup matl.
• I'd like to see more treatment of the specific criticisms of sample size and rat species. E.g., do other safety studies follow the 65-rat sample size rule and use other species?
• Entine refers to multi-generational studies. Discuss that in more detail here. The mentioned review is doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048
• Word count reduced from 3866 to 3381 (13%).

Lfstevens (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources are already found in the article:

1. Statement opposing Retraction (Currently Footnote 93)

• First long-term study
• Found negative effects
• Retraction a backroom deal with undisclosed people
• Retraction violates scientific Norms
• Inconclusive findings is an unacceptable reason to retract a paper
• Misrepresentations that the study said the GM products/herbicide caused CANCER.

...This is temp version. I will continuing adding shortly.David Tornheim (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Looked at the stmt and at the letter that I think it was referring to. It isn't presenting science that validates the study. It does reject the retraction and gives reasons. It would be appropriate to review it to possibly expand the r&r section. Are you saying that you want to expand the material directly above that ref? Lfstevens (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

After I prepare a more thorough list, let's see where we stand, okay?David Tornheim (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

we have had plenty of fans of seralini come by and want to add more content defending the paper - please see the archives. the consensus has been that this is WP:UNDUE - the paper was resoundingly rejected by authorities worldwide and we do not do "fair and balanced" here. The couple of lines there, with its five sources, has been judged to be plenty. consensus may change, of course, but that is what it has been, and why. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we wait for David's reply before jumping on him as a "fan"? This article is the drill down on the controversy. I see no problem in adding detail on supporters' claims. They can be addressed. The sources are already refed in the piece. By your standard, why even acknowledge that Seralini has support beyond his group? It's all the same degree of invalid. Lfstevens (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

^Thank you. David Tornheim (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not UNDUE to acknowledge the objections exist; it is UNDUE and violates WP:GEVAL to go into detail on them. This article is not a vehicle for defense of Seralini nor to attack him (which is how his supporters view it). We give the the most weight to the mainstream view, and we do not give WP:UNDUE weight to the FRINGE view that the conclusions were valid. Please do review the archives. We have had this conversation many, many times. People who believe Jeffery Smith also think that Seralini's paper was valid and seek to redeem the paper by including exactly this content; the two POVs go hand in hand. and they get all outraged and write in all caps that the article fails NPOV. The content they want and the behavior is not new. Jytdog (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Checked out geval. Given that this article is about the controversy, rather than NK603 per se, I don't see how including details is undue, especially given that I was planning to include FCT's counters. I am not a Smith or Seralini supporter (although I note that Smith is already cited as a ref in the article for some reason.) I'm not trying to resurrect the paper, merely to describe what happened in full. Lfstevens (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

although some people think otherwise, nothing in this article suppresses the anti-GMO voice. The Smith reference is there and is reliable only for what Smith said; not for a claim about reality. This article is about the scandal seralini caused with his paper, and especially the PR campaign when he released it (which in my view, should be much higher in the article - it is the heart of the affair). we provide the background to that event, and the reaction of the world to it. We give a couple of lines to the reaction to the reaction, but that is (in my view) all it the WEIGHT we should give it - he made the first move - a big bold one - and set up what followed. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

cn tag

Lfstevens as usual it is interesting to watch you comb over an article like this. took a lot of care in building it, and glad most of it has survived. About your cn tag after the first sentence serving as a WP:LEAD for the "Previous Séralini papers" subsection.... (namely "Prior to 2012, Séralini had published other peer-reviewed papers that found health risks to GM foods. However, some members of the scientific community and food safety authorities questioned whether Séralini's data were sufficient to support his conclusions.{{Cn|date = March 2015}}")

... that sentence summarizes well-sourced content in that subsection. Per WP:LEAD it doesn't need a citation, in my view. Alternatively, we do a refpile, pulling from what is already there. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Reread and I think the tag can go. Done. Lfstevens (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

great. nice work, article is better now. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No evidence for "publicly opposed" to GM Food

The article incorrectly states here that CRIIGEN is "publicly opposed" to GM Food:

Committee of Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), which is publicly opposed to genetically modified food (GM food).

However, this statement is likely correct:

Séralini founded CRIIGEN because he judged that studies on GM food safety were inadequate, and questioned their acceptance.

The first sentence should be corrected to remove the text ", which is publicly opposed to genetically modified food (GM food)" because it is not accurate and none of three references provided support the conclusion. Please let me know if you are comfortable with my removal of that portion of the sentence. If not, please propose an alternative that is accurate.

References

CRIIGEN website: " Its role is at the same time to expose the inadequacies of our current assessment system – mainly in relation to public health – which makes it possible for dangerous products to continue to remain unjustifiably on the market. (emphases added) It doesn't get blacker/whiter than that - they publicly oppose GM food. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So then should the FDA be labelled as "opposed to food" and "opposed to drugs"? I would at least hope that the FDA would ask for further study of potentially "dangerous" food or drugs so they do not remain "unjustifiably on the market" (or be introduced to the market) before adequate testing was performed. So, no that statement does not show that the organization is opposed to GMO but instead supports further study (especially long-term study) before allowing certain products on the market.David Tornheim (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

i don't follow you. CRIIGEN says currently marketed GM food is dangerous and unjustifiably on the market. Both the FDA and EFSA allow GM food on the market; they don't view it as dangerous and unjustifiably still on the market (if they saw it like CRIIGEN they would remove it; that's their job). Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

more importantly, their opposition to GM food is both clear and public. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, David. The second ref has this:

"The two-year, peer-reviewed study, allegedly the first to look at the long-term effects of genetically engineered corn on animals, was published today in the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal. It was backed by the Committee of Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRII-GEN), a French nonprofit known for its opposition to GM foods."[Emphasis added.] Lfstevens (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

but the third source should go. so ok, that's an improvement that came out of this. Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

??? Lfstevens (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

here is the third source listed above - it doesn't even mention CRIIGEN; not sure how it got there. Does that answer your question about why I said it should go? Jytdog (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I wish you had said so in the first place. Lfstevens (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Lfstevens: I don't see how a reporter's claim that a group or individual is opposed to GMO's makes it true. That description is an opinion without any evidence, not a fact that is supported by evidence. If the reporter quoted Seralini saying he was opposed to GMO's, that would be different. But I have never seen a quote from Seralini saying anything like that. Everything I have seen written by him or about him says that he thinks that GMO's are insufficiently tested.

@David Tornheim: We don't assess truth as editors. We report what reliable sources say on the subject. Reporters are (generally) considered reliable. You need to find some other reliable source that says that CRIIGEN is not opposed to GMOs. I'd say it would be fine if they said "not opposed to those that have been sufficiently tested" or something like that. Lfstevens (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lfstevens: I just reviewed the essay WP:TRUTH, which is neither Policy nor Guideline. It says, "That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth." Additionally, the essay says:

"but reliable sources are not infallible...."

• "Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts: 'The hypno-toad is supreme' is more likely to be found than 'our opinion is that the hypno-toad is supreme, but there are others who disagree with us.' It is the task of the Wikipedia editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Wikipedia's voice; this is one reason Wikipedia's voice should be neutral...."
• "It is important not to "cherry-pick" quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately."
• "Reliable sources may express speculation, or a source for a significant view may include in it views that are not significant. In these cases, criteria other than those described in our policy on sources are necessary."
• "Even the most reliable sources commit mistakes from time to time..."

The problem is that the statement that Seralini is "opposed to GMO's" is just speculation and an opinion with no facts to support it, cherry-picked from an article about the study and response to it in relation to other studies regarding GMO safety (nothing about any opposition to GMO's in general), and that speculation appears to be wrong, and I have seen no facts to support that view as being more correct than that Seralini (and CRIIGEN) want more long-term testing before GMO's are put on the market. If you wanted to quote the reporter--who I do not believe is even an expert about GMO's or science--that might be a reasonable alternative, because it is an opinion, not a fact.

David Tornheim (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, you don't knowingly write something that is false. But if it is reasonable and sourced, then I'd say it's not OR to put it in. If a better, countering source comes along, then that should rule. Given that Seralini is not a pol, it wouldn't be surprising that he hasn't expressed any balancing-style caveats. Lfstevens (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"CRIIGEN says currently marketed GM food is dangerous and unjustifiably on the market." I have not seen evidence for that claim--that does not sound right. They do say "potentially" dangerous food is on the market--a big difference. "Both the FDA and EFSA allow GM food on the market; they don't view it as dangerous and unjustifiably still on the market (if they saw it like CRIIGEN they would remove it; that's their job)." That's probably true. However, CRIIGEN and Seralini do not believe the the FDA and EFSA are doing their jobs. Jeffrey Smith and I imagine many other GM critics would agree. There's a big difference between having concerns about the testing and safety of a product and being opposed to the product. David Tornheim (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I only brought up the FDA because you did. CRIIGEN says that GM food is dangerous and unjustifiably on the market. That is safely paraphrased as "opposed to GM Food"... as the 2nd reliable source does, and as our article does. Jytdog (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not "safely" paraphrased, it is incorrectly paraphrased to come to a conclusion that is not in the original. If the Wiki article were to quote the CRIIGEN site about their concern about dangerous food being unjustifiably on the market, I would be okay with that. That is accurate and consistent with everything Seralini has said. David Tornheim (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

it is fully supported by source #2, which is reliable. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The truth finally seems to have got its boots on...

A series of commentaries on the Séralini affair [1]. Seems the study is every bit as shoddy as it always appeared. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Jon Entine and his Genetic Literacy Project is WP:RS and WP:NPOV with regard to GMO issues? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a different study. The conflict of interest allegation is notable, but this is at the least a different chapter in the drama. Also, Entine is not a scientist. He can report on science, like any journalist, but that's different. Lfstevens (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Objection -- article lacks NPOV

I object to this revert. I was attempting to include the recently published review journal article, organize the article to make sense and to have the content of the body reflected in the lede. The lede focuses almost entirely on discrediting the author despite the support for the author found in the article and in the recent review study. Please work towards consensus rather than simply reverting my efforts to improve and balance the article to make in WP:NPOV. David Tornheim (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to adjust for WP:WEIGHT; we have high quality sources such as EFSA which says the study is not adequate or good. One review, published in the same low quality, low impact, non-MEDLINE indexed journal that republished the original study does not significantly shift the overall weight of the high quality sources' conclusions. Review WP:GEVAL. Yobol (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

David Tornheim I agree with you that this Wikipedia article has developed with an odd focus that makes it difficult to understand the basics of the "affair". If you propose changes in smaller steps then I would comment on them. It is more difficult to judge sets of changes than individual ones. Some of the changes you might like to make might not be questioned at all, then others might give pause. Thanks for giving attention to this. I would like to see the article improved.

Yobol I agree with what you are saying but in the changes that David presented, the source cited seems to be covering the issue from a social perspective and not a scientific one, so high quality scientific sources are less relevant for what is being proposed. I am ready to discuss more if this user wants to propose something. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree regarding the specific source in question, though the other changes including addition to the lead are not improvements in my opinion. I have reintroduced that material with specific in text attribution (rather than "scientists") and hopefully better summary. Yobol (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yobol is apparently edit warring over his POV. I warned the user on his talk page. The user removed long standing content from the page. prokaryotes (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• You do not understand WP:NPOV. We do not do "fair and balanced" here - "fair and balanced" violates WP:NPOV. See WP:GEVAL. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog this is not your article, you keep behaving like WP:OWN, and WP:HOUND, also strangely you begin deleting content which has been part of the article for month, and the addition discussed here.prokaryotes (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral view points The Steps Centre has a good article, which highlights some of the issues regarding this article - FOR OR AGAINST GM CROPS? OTHER POSITIONS ARE AVAILABLE prokaryotes (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)