Talk:Séralini affair

speedy delete notice created and then deleted

I second the request for deletion of this page. Any information that attempts to create balance in this libellous, unscientific attack on a peer-reviewed paper by an experienced toxicologist is immediately deleted without cause. Clearly these 'editors' are not interested in engaging in discussion; they simply vandalise the article. Jytdog and BlackHades are the latest examples. Apparently only their own biased sources are reliable! Dusha100 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear that regarding this page, due to the constant deletion of edits that attempt to add balance and other already-published and authoritative views to the page, the second of the Wikipedia "Five Pillars" is being breached. The second pillar is as follows:

"WIKIPEDIA IS WRITTEN FROM A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

The article is clearly not neutral, not truthful, not balanced, not accurate, not reliable, and not independent... it is a piece of advocacy of a particular position, as well as being defamatory.

Seemingly the users who are determined to preserve this article as an attack piece cannot even allow dissenting views of scientists in regulatory bodies to be noted; and while they are eager to point to supposed conflicts of interest on Prof Seralini's part, pointing out the conflicts of interest of Seralini's critics, which are well reported in some media articles, is not acceptable to them. I have picked up several misleading statements that are contradicted by clear evidence, yet all my attempts to redress the balance are rapidly vandalised. The claimed reasons given for the deletions, when they are offered, are spurious because they could easily be addressed by making minor edits to the language. Instead of this, there are wholesale deletions on flimsy grounds.Dusha100 (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi dusha. As per the instructions on the speedy delete notice, I have removed the tag. (The instructions don't say what to do next, so I created the section header) This article is not about Seralini himself, nor even about all his work. It is about the 2012 paper. He is not the subject, nor is any other entity (for example CRIIGEN), so the article cannot "disparage or threaten its subject or some other entity. This includes libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to." The article is very much about the 2012 paper. Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear to me what you mean about not "allow(ing) dissenting views of scientists in regulatory bodies to be noted". Wikipedia is not about giving "equal time" nor is it about cherry picking - it is about presenting the world as depicted in reliable sources. You wanted to depict the Belgian food authority's report as supporting the Seralini study, when in fact its first conclusion was that the study itself brings nothing to the table. I moved it back to the criticism section. I did pull out the full quote of the findings, because its second finding did reach out a fig leaf to Seralini, in granting his long-held point that we need tougher standards for tox testing. And I appreciated you causing me to re-read that, so that this could accurately be told in Wikipedia. But pulling out quotes from dissenters from the Belgian committee gives those voices undue weight. And the fact is, that mainstream science - and most importantly - regulatory scientists - have thrown out the study, across the board. The data was not strong enough for the conclusions that Seralini drew from it. That is the story that this article needs to tell. The mainstream story. That's how Wikipedia works.Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh and what "misleading statements that are contradicted by clear evidence" are in the article, and what contradicts them? If that is true then we should indeed fix them! Please do bring them up here so we can discuss them. Sometimes people make mistakes in deleting things (or adding things) but this is what Talk is for. Jytdog (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality and original research

Looking at the article as it was on May 18, I see a few places where Wikipedia editors have inserted their own opinions. An example: "Tester's remark ... is scientifically meaningless, since GM foods are not labeled in the US and thus it is impossible to trace consumption." This is classified as original research on Wikipedia, and is not allowed. We are only allowed to include material that has already been published in reliable sources. That includes also means that we cannot include synthesis of previously published material that is if it is used to create original or novel material. Also, a great deal of this version consists of detailed criticism of the study. As well as being original research, I think this violates Wikipedia's principle of undue weight. Per Wikipedia:Criticism, criticism should not form the bulk of the article, and instead we should focus on reporting the facts of the matter. Notable criticism can be included within reason, but if almost all the article consists of criticism, I don't think we can claim that this is written from a neutral point of view. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice work! bobrayner (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Although I'm not sure Dusha100 will like me removing so much of the material that they wrote. Dusha, it's important for you to understand that I haven't removed your work out of any idealogical position for or against GM food. I've removed your work because that is how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines say that we should write our articles. Also, I think that the article could do with a restructuring and more background info about the study itself, but I don't have time to do that today. If no-one else beats me to it, I'll see if I have time to do it later this week some time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Dusha, please try to understand the removal of your edits is not based on your positions, it it based on wikipedia policies. Instead of trying to add edits that violates policies over and over, you should try to listen to those trying to help you. BlackHades (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 May 2013 - Adding new text for scientific clarity in the section copied below

Sprague-Dawley rats have a lifespan of about two years and have a high tendency to get cancer over their lifespan (one study found that over eighty percent of males and over seventy percent of females got cancer under normal conditions). Sprague-Dawley rats are routinely used for long-term studies on toxicological and carcinogenic effects of chemicals exactly because of their biological properties which help to detect negative effects of chemicals. Major institutions using this strain of rats are the National Toxicology Program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services () and the European Ramazzini Foundation for Oncology and Environmental Sciences (Italy) (). Many claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study. Haveabreak (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I semiprotected the article for a short time because a new user was repeatedly blanking it with speedy deletion requests. Protection will lapse in half an hour and you can then edit it directly. Your last sentence needs a source, and the "weasel words" many claimed that would be better replaced by the names of those who claimed this. JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The requested edit above obliterates the key point of the paragraph, which is about statistical power. The criticism is not about the choice of SD rats alone, but rather about the choice of the number of SD rats used for a lifetime study -- three elements of the experimental design considered together - the kind of rat, the length of the study, and the number of rats per arm. This is an issue of experimental design. If you want to get meaningful results in any experiment - results that can show experimental effects above random noise - you have to design your experiment carefully. If you are doing a lifetime study in SD rats (2 elements), you need over 50 SD rats per arm to get meaningful results (3rd element), because SD rats have a high rate of cancer over their lifetimes, It is absolutely true that SD rats are commonly used in tox and carcinogenicity studies, but they are used at low numbers like Seralini used in shorter term (3 month) studies, not for lifetime studies, and if lifetime studies are done, over 50 rats are used. Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because it removes useful discussion around validity of scientific studies/ publications and regulations in an attempt to silence legitimate criticism. Mike Kelly (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Article title

Why does the article take its title, "Séralini affair", from the title of this Cosmos piece attacking the Séralini study? Wouldn't "Séralini GMO study" or something like that be more appropriate? groupuscule (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

it is the title that the original creator gave - you should ask him or her where it came from rather than assuming. The title does follow suit of the Pusztai affair article that has existed for quite some time - that may be its precedent. There are ton of Wikpedia articles with the title "X affair" referring to some scandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=50&offset=0&redirs=1&profile=default&search=affair I am not opposed to changing the name but it seems reasonable that the title would reference the controversy. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Another ridiculous attempt to hide information. This needs to be changed immediately. We refer to sexual escapades as affairs, not science. Is it a cionicidence this happens to be a study that disgruntled a multinational?. petrarchan47tc 01:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I wish you were not so harsh in discussing things, petrarchan. Here are examples of nonsexual "affairs" that are wikipedia articles, other than Pusztai affair (which is the closest, and has existed for 3 years now); Sokal affair (also not far removed as it was about a scientific publication); Dreyfus affair, Haymarket affair, Iran–Contra affair, Trent Affair, Gaspée Affair, Lavon Affair (and there are many more)

Definition of "affair" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affair - all these are solidly in the territory of 3b here. I think the whirlwind around the 2012 publication was definitely " a matter occasioning public anxiety, controversy, or scandal" no matter which side of it you were on.

1 a plural : commercial, professional, public, or personal business

b : matter, concern

2 a procedure, action, or occasion only vaguely specified; also : an object or collection of objects only vaguely specified <their house was a 2-story affair>

3

a : a romantic or passionate attachment typically of limited duration : liaison 2b

b : a matter occasioning public anxiety, controversy, or scandal : case Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, since you were not the one who named the article, I'm confused as to why you are taking my comments personally. I'm glad you're not opposed to changing the name. petrarchan47tc 08:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the name of the article should be changed to "Séralini Scandal", bearing in mind the quality of the science involved, and the unusual nature of the launch and publicity surrounding the paper, and the continued hype. "Séralini Affair" doesn't seem to do it justice? Roxy the dog (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Is a pretty consistent way of addressing articles of this type and is more neutral than scandal. This article is about more than the study and its reception. It is also about the Science by press conference approach and the books and films promised etc. Simply calling it "Séralini GMO study" hides the main reason this is notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Honestly Addressing GM Lobby Slant

It is clear to me and, I think, others, that this article is slanted heavily towards those who want to discredit Séralini's research. In the article itself, we have a link to this letter, signed by 130 scientists, supporting Séralini's work. We take care to note that these scientists are associated with anti-GM groups.

On the other side, the article devotes many sentences to critics of Séralini's work. It's not clear whether these critics number more than 130. Nor whether they are free from financial ties to the GM industry. We cite Henry I. Miller as an expert, despite his membership in an industry mouthpiece.

This letter, which currently earns one single sentence in our article, makes some important claims. The first few are worth quoting in full, to understand what we're dealing with here:

1) History of Attacks on Risk-finding Studies. Seralini and colleagues are just the latest in a series of researchers whose findings have triggered orchestrated campaigns of harassment. Examples from just the last few years include Ignacio Chapela, a then untenured Assistant Professor at Berkeley, whose paper on GM contamination of maize in Mexico (Quist and Chapela, 2001) sparked an intensive internet-based campaign to discredit him. This campaign was reportedly masterminded by the Bivings Group, a public relations firm specializing in viral marketing – and frequently hired by Monsanto (Delborne, 2008).

The distinguished career of biochemist Arpad Pusztai, came to an effective end when he attempted to report his contradictory findings on GM potatoes (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999a). Everything from a gag order, forced retirement, seizure of data, and harassment by the British Royal Society were used to forestall his continued research (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999b; Laidlaw, 2003). Even threats of physical violence have been used, most recently against Andres Carrasco, Professor of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires, whose research (Paganelli et al. 2010) identified health risks from glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup (Amnesty International, 2010).

It was no surprise therefore, that when in 2009, 26 corn entomologists took the unprecedented step of writing directly to the US EPA to complain about industry control of access to GM crops for research, the letter was sent anonymously (Pollack, 2009).

2) The Role of the Science Media. An important but often unnoticed aspect of this intimidation is that it frequently occurs in concert with the science media (Ermakova, 2007; Heinemann and Traavik, 2007; Latham and Wilson, 2007). Reporting of the Seralini paper in arguably the most prestigious segments of the science media: Science, the New York Times, New Scientist, and the Washington Post uniformly failed to “balance” criticism of the research, with even minimal coverage of support for the Seralini paper (Carmen, 2012; Enserink, 2012; MacKenzie, 2012; Pollack, 2012). Nevertheless, less well-resourced media outlets, such as the UK Daily Mail appeared to have no trouble finding a positive scientific opinion on the same study (Poulter, 2012).

3) Misleading Media Reporting. A key pattern with risk-finding studies is that the criticisms voiced in the media are often red herrings, misleading, or untruthful. Thus, the use of common methodologies was portrayed as indicative of shoddy science when used by Seralini et al. (2012) but not when used by industry (see refs above and Science Media Centre, 2012). The use of red herring arguments appears intended to sow doubt and confusion among non-experts. For example, Tom Sanders of Kings College, London was quoted as saying: “This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted” (Hirschler and Kelland, 2012 ). He failed to point out, or was unaware, that most industry feeding studies have used Sprague-Dawley rats (e.g. Hammond et al., 1996, 2004, 2006; MacKenzie et al., 2007). In these and other industry studies (e.g. Malley et al. 2007), feed intake was unrestricted. Sanders’ comments are important because they were widely quoted and because they were part of an orchestrated response to the Seralini study by the Science Media Centre of the British Royal Institution. The Science Media Centre has a long history of quelling GMO controversies and its funders include numerous companies that produce GMOs and pesticides.

Check out that last rebuttal. Here we have 130 scientists rebutting one. One scientist, Tom Sanders, who prefers aspartame to fruit. Tom Sanders, quoted on PR Newswire. Tom Sanders, who got paid by NutraSweet when it was owned by Monsanto. It's Tom Sanders v. 130 other scientists, but his criticism is reported as fact. Does this bias have something to do with the multi-million dollar GM public relations industry?

Does it?

Here are the other individuals currently named in the article as critics of the Séralini research. These individuals are representatives of a consensus so vast it outweighs the letter cheeky 130.

• Henry I. Miller
• Jon Entine
• Marion Nestle
• Maurice Moloney

Independent scientists with no ties to the world of business & PR? Sticking their necks out to buck the anti-GM current? ... Or are they saying what they're paid to say? Either way, do their opinions completely eclipse those of the scientists who support Séralini?

Why are these folks (140 scientists) described as "opposing the controversy"? Why are they quoted regarding the "image of the community" ... and not in their statement which seriously undermines the apparent consensus presented above?

The fact that a group of a dozen people claiming to represent six academies have decided on a joint statement without debate is contrary to the normal functioning of these institutions and questions the vision of science and technology (and their usefulness name) who presided over such a decision (unlike, for example, the debate organized by the Academy of Sciences in the framework of the debate on climate change, after which the responsibility of the man was proven).

Y'all felt this wasn't relevant? Not worth the space to include?

What's going on here?

Why, for that matter, are the critics acting so incredulous about the idea that a deadly poison, marketed for its ability to kill whole fields full of plants, might also have effects on animal organisms as well?

Some possible reasons have been presented. Make up your own mind. But, more importantly, what solutions can we find to the bias exerted by the corporate PR machine? Not only on Wikipedia, but on the whole field of discourse extending from the 'soft' science press into the world of journals and studies?

An obvious necessary change is to give the page a more neutral name.

Séralini affair → Séralini GMO research – Foregrounds the research itself rather than the controversy surrounding it. The current name flags Séralini's research as "discredited"—but this reflects PR spin, not actual consensus. Furthermore, the article we have now describes several studies by Séralini, yet the name refers to controversy surrounding only a single one. Finally, the name of the article is taken from a single magazine piece groupuscule (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could include more information that falls outside the narrative demanded by the PR machine.

How about including John Vidal's positive coverage of the study, printed in The Guardian:

This was scientific dynamite. It was the first time that maize containing these specific genes had been tested on rats over two years - nearly their full lifespan - as opposed to the 90-day trials demanded by regulators. Around a dozen long-term studies of different GM crops have failed to find similar effects. Séralini's study also looked at the toxicity of the Roundup herbicide when fed directly to rats.

It even discusses the critics! And it says the study will have lasting significance:

Despite the concerns over Séralini's methodological flaws, it looks as though the study will not be swept under the carpet. It is the longest study done on this variety of maize and many argue that it must be taken seriously by regulators and governments. French health and safety authorities now plan to investigate NK603 and the study's findings and the European Food Safety Agency has said it will assess the research. Séralini is now demanding that all the data be assessed by an independent international committee, arguing that experts involved in the authorisation of the maize should not be involved.

We might include some of the peer-reviewed studies cited directly by Séralini himself, in response to accusations made against him in the popular press.

We could discuss the libel lawsuit Séralini won in 2011—against a group whose "critical conclusions" are referenced in relation to a 2007 paper.

Why is Food and Chemical Toxicology, under fire from the GM lobby for publishing Séralini 's work, now under the direction of a Monsanto collaborator?

Why did so many early critics of the study come from the Science Media Centre? And why isn't that affiliation mentioned in the Wikipedia article?

I hope we can make some real progress on this.

Thanks for your consideration. groupuscule (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible name change

Name change suggestion copy/pasted from longer post above; isolated from other suggestions in order to clarify discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Séralini affair → Séralini GMO research – Foregrounds the research itself rather than the controversy surrounding it. The current name flags Séralini's research as "discredited"—but this reflects PR spin, not actual consensus. Furthermore, the article we have now describes several studies by Séralini, yet the name refers to controversy surrounding only a single one. Finally, the name of the article is taken from a single magazine piece groupuscule (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose We need a title that makes clear that this article is about the 2012 publication and the brouhaha around it, including the way it was released. "Seralini Affair" is fine for that, although there are alternatives. Entitling the article the way you want to, will lead to a debate on GMOs themselves and will end up duplicating the long article that already exists, Genetically modified food controversies, which already has a section on the Seralini studies that this article expands on. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As I said above, we take a pretty consistent way of addressing articles of this type and is more neutral than saying scandal. This article is about more than the study and its reception. It is also about the Science by press conference approach and the books and films promised etc. Simply calling it "Séralini GMO study" hides the main reason this is notable. The reality is that the scientific consensus is highly critical of Seralini's work, the article is of course going to reflect that if it is to be neutral. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It is used in the media[1][2] so it is not an invented title. If the Pusztai publication is an affair then this one should at least be described as an affair as well. I agree with Wolfie that issues go well beyond this study. The media angle is presented, as it should be considering that the release of this study to them is part of what makes it so controversial. The Guardian one linked above is present as I type (not sure when it was added as have not been closely following the edits there). However, Wikipedia rightly favours scientific sources over media ones when it comes to reliability. Therefore this article should give more weight to the scientific side than the journalistic. As to your questions it is not really up to us to say why, but to report on what others have said. We should include Seralini's response to the criticism, which I guess the "Defense of the study and opposition to reaction of the scientific community" is for. I would suggest that this article still needs a lot of work, but the title is not an issue in my opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Per Jytdog, who originally said, and I agree, "it sounds like a James Bond movie". I've highlighted a quotation in the section below regarding the possibility that the scientific journals could be compromised... something we should consider. petrarchan47tc 04:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as the scope of the article (as it currently stands) is larger than just the research. (Personally, I would also avoid the term "GMO" but I can bring that up in a later discussion if it becomes relevant.) That said, I wouldn't object to a rename using the word controversy instead, or anything that broadened the scope to explicitly include the previous studies instead of keeping them in the background section. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The article isn't about "Séralini GMO research" Roxy the dog (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem, Wikipedia has the "Séralini controversy" article covered, but there is no main article for the study. This is far from neutral, encyclopedic treatment of an issue. petrarchan47tc 22:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not a problem at all. Millions of papers are published every year; very few are notable. What's notable here is the controversy around Séralini 's work. "Affair" is a perfectly good way of naming it; it's even quite lenient, since independent sources have used much more negative language. Would you prefer Séralini fraud or Séralini scientific misconduct controversy or Séralini hoax? bobrayner (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why we would need an article for an analysis of the study itself, sounds a bit pointless. We do have secondary sources which critically analyse the original paper, but they also talk about the affair in general as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Response to Groupuscule's points above

Responding to some of the points Groupuscule raised in his post above (separating from request for move which needs bullet point responses). Groupuscule, thanks for posting. This is a bit much to respond to at all at once, but let me respond to some things. I will separate my responses so you and others can respond point by point. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

On the libel suit - good point, will add it. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional note. The sources you brought for this are all biased. Am using different, NPOV sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

About the "proGMO slant" you mention throughout and in the title of this section, about citing papers that Seralini cites in his self-defense... and about other points you make.. Let's be clear -- as with Global warming and Global warming controversy - it is good for Wikipedia to describe controversies, but Wikipedia needs to describe the scientific consensus clearly, and not give equal weight to non-consensus viewpoints. Global warming is real, and is caused by humans. This is the scientific consensus. Food from GMOs that is on the market is no more risky than food from conventional counterparts. This is the scientific consensus. Seralini is trying to overturn the consensus, and is so far failing. This article is not about whether food from GMOs is safe nor whether regulatory requirements are strict enough, and those issues should not be recapitulated here. This article is about the 2012 Seralini study and the brouhaha around it. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You cite the independentsciencenews.com story and the http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14514 story, and in several other places make it somewhat clear that you subscribe those perspectives. I find the independentsciencenews story a pretty reprehensible example of "Fox News" type journalism where you ask insinuating questions and count on people to leap to the answer and walk away believing that answer. (e.g. "What if the President lied about Benghazi, and what if he in fact knew about this much earlier?") Nobody knows why Goodman is now an Associate Editor at FTC (not a Managing Editor or Editor in Chief - not "controlling", and not Monsanto itself controlling as the headline of the article would have you believe) nor why he took the job. I find the "Monsanto zombie" hypothesis and the conspiracy hypothesis really dehumanizing and unscientific in both this and the gmwatch article. There was a great Nature article about the unusual level of scientific conflict around scientific publications on GMOs that was brought to my attention in the comment section of Goodman article - worth a read, as it is a nuanced report of the situation that has interviews with people (people! not zombies) on both sides of the conflicts and from observers of it. You don't need Monsanto zombies and secret conspiracies to explain the conflicts. I created a new section in the Controversies article discussing with these unusual conflicts. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

About Vidal, he while he is narrowly right about this being the first long term feeding study of glyphosate-resistant maize, this is by far not the first long term feeding study of a GMO.... so in that sense the nature of the study itself is not "dynamite". Seralini didn't cite any of these studies in his paper, so it is somewhat natural that Vidal might have been misled..

Sakamoto Y et al (2008) A 104-week feeding study of genetically modified soybeans in F344rats. J Food Hyg Soc Jpn 49:272–282

Snell C, Bernheim A, Berge JB, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Ricroch AE (2012) Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food Chem Toxicol 50:1134–1148Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to introduce original research. If it is not the first it would be better to look for someone else (someone reliable) that has already made that connection and use them to counter the point. AIRcorn (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on that Aircorn. These two studies and Seralini's failure to cite them were pointed out in Arjo G, et al. (2013). Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: an in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. study claiming that Roundup Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup cause cancer in rats. Transgenic Research 22: 2 255-267. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an interesting, recent article about this here that could shed some light. petrarchan47tc 23:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The strategy, often with the willing cooperation of publishers, is effective and sometimes blatant. In 2009, the scientific publishing giant Elsevier was found to have invented an entire medical journal, complete with editorial board, in order to publish papers promoting the products of the pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck. Merck provided the papers, Elsevier published them, and doctors read them, unaware that the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine was simply a stuffed dummy.

Fast forward to September 2012, when the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) published a study that caused an international storm (Séralini, et al. 2012). The study, led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, France, suggested a Monsanto genetically modified (GM) maize, and the Roundup herbicide it is grown with, pose serious health risks. The two-year feeding study found that rats fed both suffered severe organ damage and increased rates of tumors and premature death. Both the herbicide (Roundup) and the GM maize are Monsanto products. Corinne Lepage, France’s former environment minister, called the study “a bomb”. Subsequently, an orchestrated campaign was launched to discredit the study in the media and persuade the journal to retract it. Many of those who wrote letters to FCT (which is published by Elsevier) had conflicts of interest with the GM industry and its lobby groups, though these were not publicly disclosed. The journal did not retract the study. But just a few months later, in early 2013 the FCT editorial board acquired a new “Associate Editor for biotechnology”, Richard E. Goodman. This was a new position, seemingly established especially for Goodman in the wake of the “Séralini affair”. Richard E. Goodman is professor at the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska. But he is also a former Monsanto employee, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. While at Monsanto he assessed the allergenicity of the company’s GM crops and published papers on its behalf on allergenicity and safety issues relating to GM food (Goodman and Leach 2004).

Goodman had no documented connection to the journal until February 2013. His fast-tracked appointment, directly onto the upper editorial board raises urgent questions. Does Monsanto now effectively decide which papers on biotechnology are published in FCT? And is this part of an attempt by Monsanto and the life science industry to seize control of science?

Yep, and that last sentence is classic Fox News "journalism" (e.g. "What if the President lied about Benghazi, and what if he in fact knew about this much earlier?" and on the basis of this kind of speculation, call Benghazi "bigger than Watergate"). Lovely. With respect to any role for Monsanto in the scientific vitriol, independentsciencenews presents no evidence - only insinuation and "guilt by association" - what I call the "Monsanto zombie" hypothesis. The Nature article I linked to above provides a more real world explanation for the vitriol. It doesn't make the vitriol any less ugly but at least provides a nuanced understanding of what is going on, that doesn't rely on conspiracy theories. Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is nothing close to a reliable source, but conspiratorial ideation. Use the scientific literature, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That is the independentsciencenews article that groupuscule mentioned and that I responded to. These anti-GMO sites republish each other's content all the time which is one reason why there ~seems~ to be so much anti-GMO information out there. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional note, about the letter signed by 130 scientists that you mention, Groupuscule. It is cited in the article already. And you will note that the letter mostly seems upset with the vitriol with which Seralini's paper was attacked. They do not support the conclusions that are stated in Seralini's 2012 study -- they say "the protocol followed in this study has flaws" (the full sentence is "On the other hand, the protocol followed in this study has flaws that are debated within the scientific community." - I am just pointing out that they say unambiguously that the study has flaws.) and they no where say that the conclusions are right. They do say that they support more research into the safety of GMOs. Everybody - including regulators who have approved them -- would love more data. That is not an earth shaking statement. They also hold wide open the possibility that Seralini may ultimately be proven right and bring up asbestos as a great example of products that were allowed on the market that turned out to be toxic. Again, none of that says that they believe that the conclusions of the 2012 paper are right. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"Everybody loves more data" imho isn't quite true, it applies to real scientists interested in knowledge only. But for the rest of that lot it is mostly "everybody loves more data supporting their position" and many of them in doubt prefer no data to data not supporting their position.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No that is not what I am saying -- not at all. If you read the documents that regulators produce about the work they do, particularly in standards setting, they always want to have better assays and instrumentation, and therefore better data, with which to make the judgments they have to make. Example - substantial equivalence. This is based on asking whether a GM product (say Bt corn) is substantially equivalent to the parent non GM strain. When these guys first started working, that was a question they could ask at a high level, but non GM strains of corn had not been deeply characterized, and in fact characterizing any agricultural produce definitively is highly problematic since a given piece of produce will vary based on where it was grown, the conditions under which it was grown, how long it has been since it was harvested and how it was treated on the way to the lab. Regulators want better answers for those things so that when they consider substantial equivalence they can give more complete, nuanced answers. That is one example. Another example is having data that protocols that are being used to study, say toxicity, are indeed sufficient. Meta-data, if you will. That is what I meant. What you say is also true, however. Both "sides" would love more definitive data proving their point. But that is not what I was saying. Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are conflating two independent letters, each signed by 100+ scientists. You are not responding to the claim of egregiously imbalanced coverage. A handful of (mostly industry-funded) scientists get paragraphs upon paragraphs of space, while 130 of their critics receive only 1 sentence. You say "It is cited in the article already"—indeed, both letters are—without responding to any my actual claims about how these letters are badly misrepresented. Did you misread my comment on purpose or by accident?

You are not responding to any of the many arguments about biased pro-GM sources. You are not responding to any of the evidence suggesting an industry PR campaign to smear Séralini. You have written a lot but not said very much. groupuscule (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe I and others have responded to everything you have brought up. Please let me know what specific issues you see outstanding. Also, did you see my comment below, which you have not responded to yet? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(Interjection) Per WP:NPOV the relative proportion of coverage must reflect the proportion of coverage by the reliable sources. Any claim that coverage is "egregiously imbalanced" should refer to this proportion. Secondly, it looks like your sources are either unreliable or low reliability (but please feel free to get outside views at WP:RSN, then we can follow their judgement). Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Groupuscule, first, I disagree very strongly that regulatory agencies are industry funded -- those are government employees. Most of the article is the response of regulatory bodies. With respect to the letter, thank you for pointing out my error about the letter! Yes that letter does support the conclusions of the Seralini paper. As you note, the article includes it, and accurately describes the signatories as scientists, scholars, and activists. Most of that article is taken up with concern about the vitriol, like the other letter. The rest does repeat some of Seralini's arguments in favor of his studies - for example, that SD rats are used in industry-funded studies too, which is in argument that entirely ducks the criticism that the problem with the choice of rat species is the length of the study and the number used, not the choice of rat species alone (the regulatory standard for short term studies is 10 per arm - and this is what industry uses; the standard for a long term term study in rats that die at high rates, like these do, is 65 per arm.) If S had done short term studies or used 65 rats per arm, the choice of SD rats would not be so much under discussion. But in any case, what content would you like to see from these two letters included in the article? Jytdog (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

removal of description of methods section quoted from paper; primary flag

Hi Arc

You removed the quote from the methods section of the experimental and control groups and flagged other text as "primary". For what it was worth, I debated a lot about doing this, before I did it. Because there is so much strong rhetoric flying around about this paper, both supporting it and criticizing it, in the scientific literature and popular press, that I thought it was important to quote and cite 'from the horse's mouth' what the authors said they found, and what they said they did, to at least have that part uncontestable from either side. I prefer to use secondary sources all the time too, but as I understand it, it is OK to cite primary only in order to say "they said X" and that is what I was doing here. That was my rationale, anyway. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In general it is best to avoid citing material purely from primary sources and use them to augment the secondary sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, primary sources do have their place, but as per IRWolfie- we should be using secondary sources when they're available. For example, the level of reporting by secondary sources will indicate the relative importance of content from the primary sources. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits June 1

It seems unnecessary to include a Monsanto-funded source when we have so many independent sources. (By the way, the text I removed identifies the authors as "independent" when they are not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they thank Monsanto within the article.) I would say that since it's peer-reviewed, it's still RS, but not as reliable as the independent sources. There are enough people who think that all the independent sources have COI, so I think inclusion casts unnecessary doubt on the independent sources (guilt by association, among other things) and by extension casts doubt on the consensus conclusion. There are probably more careful wording choices which could be used to avoid this, but even then there is still a risk of misinterpretation. Since we have more than enough material from the other sources, we can afford to hold them to a higher standard. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That is what I figured; I reject "guilt by association" arguments (by that account, nothing by Seralini should be discussed as he is funded by anti-GMO organizations and is therefore biased) but I like the higher standard thing. Feel free to re-delete and thanks for the dialog. Hopefully people supporting Seralini will not interpret this deletion as hiding anything; I do not believe that was your intent and now you have stated what the intent is. Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad you agree, and I'm always willing to discuss. :-) I didn't mean to state a guilt by association argument, only that the content could be interpreted that way. Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I moved it to the further reading section, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This article should be considered for deletion or suspension pending an investigation of possible infiltration by outside interests.

By order of the secret cabal psychopathic undercover mole king, take grand claims of conspiracy to WP:COI/N. IRWolfie- (talk)

According to the preamble, there has already been a decision to reject the request to delete this page and that is will be kept. Having read over most of this Talk "page" I respectfully submit that while it should not be deleted, the arguments for it have tremendous merit and that some serious problems remain. It is not inconceivable that the article itself should be deleted or suspended. I am very supportive of the basic arguments in the first section regarding Talk page deletion and have some observations of my own. I readily confess that they have a subjective element, but having confessed that I will argue that they should nevertheless be tolerated and used as motivation to investigate. I think that there is a probability that there is a genuine mole at work here. Anyone reading this who is familiar with the content of this Talk section -- and who is mature and experienced in legal conflict -- will likely recognize a certain unctuousness and time-and-effort dedication that is strongly suggestive of a funded agenda. I could be wrong, but reading the article and then the Talk section sets off all kinds of alarms. Quite frankly its the same kind of alarms I hear when I suspect I am dealing with a psychopath or very smart sociopath -- which, technically are difficult to distinguish. I am being very bold here, but before anyone jumps all over me for indulging my impressions, let me suggest that we are all -- and should be -- concerned when a substantial Wikipedia article can produce that kind of reaction in anyone. It deserves to be subjected to further consideration and/or investigation. An article that is so distinctly able to illicit concern over its objectivity is not an article that meets the standards of Wikipedia. I understand that Wikipedia relies on the dedicated participation of uncompensated individuals with subject matter expertise, public interest, personal idealism, and strong motivation to express themselves in an academic setting -- or some combination of these things. It also necessarily tolerates a degree of participation by people who, for ideological or professional reasons want to make a point or suppress certain ideas or information. In any case I think that those who toil altruistically deserve a system in which those who toil for the benefit of outside interests are revealed and eliminated from the process. All humans have biases. What I am worried about, and what I believe endangers the enterprise, are threats to objectivity that are more insidious than mere personal points of view. To wrap up, I think that this Talk "page" itself deserves to be preserved for posterity, but that the article itself should be considered for deletion or suspension until concerns about professional level infiltration are resolved. Again, I could be wrong. But I am obviously not alone in concluding that something is amiss here. I have proposed a possible explanation for what's been going on. I have put an evocative label on the possible explanation that may provoke steps to get to the truth. I am not afraid to go beyond innuendo if there is support for that, but I am reluctant to simply launch ad hominen attacks at anyone without ascertaining whether there is support for a concerted effort to get to the truth. I am hopeful that senior editors will respond to this input and will educate me as appropriate concerning more formal ways I might might carry forward my recommendation. Respectfully... scanyon (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC) If you have any specific suggestions as to the article please make them here. If you would like to nominate the page for deletion yet again, please do so. If you have specific concerns about conflict of interests, please make them clear here or take them to WP:COI/N. Nebulous accusations along the lines of "I think we've been infiltrated" are unactionable and imminently unproductive. a13ean (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC) It's OK - I believe anybody who has posted on this talk page has been issued with an official Wiki supplied Tinfoil hat. Roxy the dog (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This web page should be deleted immediately due to biased information

I would like to make an official complaint about this page as it is very biased and goes completely against the Wikipedia guidelines regarding such articles. Hog1983 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The wording of the article starts "the results were widely criticised by the scientific community" - they were also widely supported by the scientific community Hog1983 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Wording from the article: "the conclusions that Séralini drew from the experiments were widely criticized, as was the design of the experiments" - this is also very misleading as can be see by the amount of support from experts and in media articles here from around the world. Hog1983 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

'The paper was also refuted by many food standards agencies' this is misleading as actually the EU food standards agency EFSA has recently followed the guidelines of the Seralini study very closely in the suggested protocol for a long-term study on GMOs. Hog1983 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

'Other long term studies, which were publicly funded, have uncovered no health issues.' This is most obviously biased - as also many independent studies have found possible harm caused by GMOs: --Hog1983 (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)for full listwww.gmoevidence.com

Every mention of the 'scientific community' in the article states that they widely criticized the study - well the same can be written for 'the scientific community widely supported the study'

I have used a few sources in this complaint but that is because these sources gather together many other sources on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog1983 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't make legal threats or try to out wikipedia editors or you will surely not be welcome here yourself. I suggest you withdraw your legal threats, then we can discuss how to make the article better. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I will not be being taking legal action over this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog1983 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(Hog1983 has deleted a comment that might have been construed as an implied legal threat. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC))

And thanks for doing so. I dont believe you are the only editor with issues re this article being biased. I suggest, you be bold and edit the article itself along the lines you have suggested. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't. Roxy the dog (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Just saying dont isnt helpful, reasons are required. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

even when the reasons are better left unsaid?Roxy the dog (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

They are not better left unsaid cos that means you dont get to have a say. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Too late. I'm going to revert it. There is no consensus for that change.Roxy the dog (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Its never too late to explain yourself. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I attempted to make this article unbiased using independent references - it was immediately deleted - I would like an explanation why? Surely we want to keep Wikipedia unbiased regarding contentious issues like this one? I also only changed biased words and added specific balance - no drastic changes.Hog1983 (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Read all of this talk page. read WP:NPOV . Roxy the dog (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources you're citing don't appear to conform to the relevant sourcing guideline covering health and safety claims: WP:MEDRS. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I used EFSA as a source (European Food Standards Authority)and it was deleted - the other source used was to a group of leading international scientists? That reason doesn't stand up? I believe what we have here is called Edit Warring?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warringHog1983 (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That's right. Please don't do it again. Thank you .Roxy the dog (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor I do not take part in EWHog1983 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I see. Roxy the dog (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

One of Hog's changes re EFSA protocol

Hog added: "The EU Food Standards Agency EFSA was the least critical and has now validated Seralini's study with its own long-term study design.(ref)EFSA : http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3347.htm and GMO Seralini: http://gmoseralini.org/seralini-validated-by-new-efsa-guidelines-on-long-term-gmo-experiments/(/ref)

First of all, the "gmoseralini" source is self-published and not reliable (see WP:RS). Second, the statement that "EFSA was the least critical" is OR and should not be here. Most importantly, the new EFSA protocol discussed in the EFSA article does not replicate Seralini's - instead, it fixes many of the flaws for which Seralini's study was widely criticized. I know that Seralini is trying to spin this as pure vindication but it is not. The protocol is an effort to prevent another spectacular flame-out like Seralini's. It does show that the EFSA are taking his question about longer studies seriously. But it absolutely does not vindicate his study design nor his interpretation of the data from his two year study. There is a big difference.Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss but I refuse to have all of my edits deleted due to your 'biased opinions' -

1. a) Seralini followed many of the Monsanto study techniques - including using Sprague-Dawley rats (which was then criticized in this article). Many of the sources in the article are also not relaible (not reliable (see WP:RS):

Thomas Lumley for Stats Chat website. 20 September 2012 Roundup scare Erio Barale-Thomas (2013 ) Letter to the editor Food and Chemical Toxicology 53:473–474 and many others b) GMO Seralini is a citizen run group with no connection to Seralini - the source is legitimate as it uses sources from only reputable media and scientific institutions c) The EFSA statement includes 95% of all the Seralini protocol - I should know as I am a top expert on scientific protocols for GMO companies. d) You have stated that other long term studies, which were publicly funded, have uncovered no health issues. True but there have been many that have shown health issues - why the biased on a wikipedia article - www.gmoevidence.com for full list of studies which have shown health issues.

Please allow edits that are not biased! Wikipedia will support all of us for that.Hog1983 (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for coming to Talk! Quick notes:

a) Just formatting-wise: f you add a single colon ":" before your comment, it indents the comment a little to distinguish yours, from the one before. Two colons adds an extra indent (I put two colons before mine, to leave you space to add one), three does yet more indent.. when they get too far you can use a symbol. double-brackets-od-double-brackets to reset back out to the margin.

b) you write, "I should know as I am a top expert on scientific protocols for GMO companies." This means that you may have a conflict of interest with regard to this subject matter. Please read WP:COI. That is all I will say about that - just pointing this out as you are new here.

c) Editor's personal authority is irrelevant in Wikipedia (we love experts, but content must be generated based on published sources, not just what any editor says that he or she knows). So what is your reliable source, then, to support the statement that "The EFSA statement includes 95% of all the Seralini protocol"? I am not sure how one quantitates similarities or differences between protocols, in any case. Interesting question.

d) I didn't state anything about other long term studies.. not sure who you are talking to, there.

e) gmoseralini is a self published source - please see WP:SPS.

Thanks again for coming to Talk! Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not an expert on wikipedia - however I am an expert on what is biased and what is not and what you are not allowing as edits is biased. You are also disparaging a peer-reviewed scientific study that was published in a scientific journal that is now run by Monsanto's ex-Director. So the arguments in the article are both wrong and dangerous as they are not two-sided! Being an expert does not make me have a COI - that is a strange comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog1983 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I personally welcome experts and wish more would edit articles they are experts in. However, for good reason, saying you are an expert carries very little weight. The best way to demonstrate your expertise is by making good edits to the article (if you are an expert you should have no trouble finding reliable sources on the topic). AIRcorn (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Instead of turning this into an edit war it might be better to discuss here what of that content can possible be included and with what exact formulation. Certainly an EFSA report or statement can be cited in the article and it should be possible to come up with a correct summary for EFSA with which both parties can live here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The relevant EFSA review is already included in the article [3]. Hog was trying to use original research to make inferences from another EFSA report which does not mention this affair, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I want this article to be more balanced for this reason I am starting this conversation again:

a) Scientific support for Seralini

Reason for editing text will be to make it more balanced and saying that the Seralini study was both ‘supported’ and ‘criticized’ by scientists – I want consensus on this before edits are made: 1. http://aspta.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/NK603-20may2013.pdf - Brazilian scientists supporting Seralini in official letter to Brazilian food regulatory body 2. http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2012/11/14/science-et-conscience_1790174_3232.html 140 scientists supporting Seralini’s study 3. http://independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/ Open letter to support Seralini from worldwide scientists

b) Text in article: ‘Other long term studies, which were publicly funded, have uncovered some health issues.’ This is unbalanced as is shown on this directory of studies showing harm caused by GMOs: www.gmoevidence.com. I would like to remove this text. Group opinion please – not just editors of this page.

c) ‘Séralini had required that journalists sign a confidentiality agreement’ this was a method of study release that has been done by others – it was both supported and criticized in the press: www.gmoseralini.org.

All text about method of release being ‘only criticized’ should be removed if this is an unbiased article

d) The Sprauge-Dawley rat is used by Monsanto and all bio-tech industry in their experiments – so all reference to this as a problem should be removed: http://gmoseralini.org/criticism-sprague-dawley-rats-get-tumours-when-food-intake-is-unrestricted/

e) All references to media coverage should be balanced : there should not be a tone of only negative media coverage as the majority of media coverage was positive – please refer to directory of media coverage here: http://gmoseralini.org/category/media-coverage/

f) The argument in above comments that the new EFSA protocol does not mention the Seralini study is wrong – as it is 95% based on the protocol of the Seralini study – Just read both protocols to see: this is an article about this connection: http://gmoseralini.org/seralini-validated-by-new-efsa-guidelines-on-long-term-gmo-experiments/

g) GMOSeralini.org is not a Self-Published Source as quoted on this talk for reason for deletion of this source: http://gmoseralini.org/about-us/ - ‘Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, his colleagues, and the organizations with which they are affiliated have no connection with the owners or editors of this website and bear no responsibility for its content.’ ‘The GMOSeralini website is owned and maintained by a group of concerned citizens and scientists.’ ‘This site has independent expert editors.’Hog1983 (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your sources are all anti-GMO and self-published websites, they will never be accepted. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

a) Some scientists supported his study, but the vast majority found it to be incredibly flawed. We must present this in a balanced way and in this case that means highlighting that it was a very poor study.

b) That link does not enhance your argument. Can you point to a single peer reviewed study that demonstates harm. The closest you will get is this 1998 one and it found very little in the way of harm.

c) The method of release is by no means normal. He basically tried to prevent dissenting views by other scientists, which is probably due to the fact that he knew it was a weak study

d) It is horses for courses. Using a rat susceptable to cancer is good for short term studies as you are more likely to see a result if something is wrong. Using it for long term studies is bad as eventually most of the control rats are going to get cancer too (as happened in this study)

e) Balance does not mean presenting both sides equally. In media that reports science the response was overwealmingly negative.

f) When we look at primary sources and interpret them ourselves it is called original reasearch. A reliable secondary source is needed to say this.

g) Even if GMOseralini is not self published it is not a reliable source for the claims you are making. At best it could be used if attributed to GMOseralini, but it then becomes a question of why their views should be included. In fact it would have been better if it was published by Seralini as he is notable enough to have his properly attributed publishings presented here. AIRcorn (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a minor point, actually we don't present things in a balanced way, we aim to present it in a due way. Those aren't the same thing (see WP:GEVAL and the BBC quote). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

While I did link to WP:due in (a), I thought balanced sounded less wikispeak. I tried to clarify what I meant later in (e), but point taken. AIRcorn (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with every point above - Le Monde and a letter from the Brazilian head of food safety - are not anti-gm sourcesHog1983 (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

a)If we do a head count of scientists worldwide who supported the study in writing it is more than the number who did notHog1983 (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC) balanced view pleaseHog1983 (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

b) Dr. Judy Carman latest study peer-reviewed demonstrates harm - you acceptance of the study is not needed for it to be included as it is peer-reviewed - http://www.gmojudycarman.org, there are also many others : http://www.gmojudycarman.org - this is my point about you going into editing the article with an un-balanced and biased viewHog1983 (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

c) The release was done like that because of previous attacks on other scisntists who released studies which show evidence of harm from GMOsHog1983 (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

d) EFSA and the French government and the USDA will now only use Sprauge-Dawley rats in long-term experiments - your argument is invalid like the article itself.Hog1983 (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

e) In the 'media that reports science' argument is interesting as you include normal media articles : Forbes etc as references - which is always pro-gm - biased againHog1983 (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I want non-biased work on wikipedia and will now report this article to the wikipedia dispute board as no elements of non-biased editing will be acceptedHog1983 (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC) {{subst:NPOVN-notice}Hog1983 (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence on wikipedia discussion boards to say you only have to use pro-gm sources? GMOSeralini is a directory for people on this chat to find the supportive media coverage and scientists who supported Seralini - http://www.gmoseralini.org I did not suggest using it as a source in the article - although you could use CRIIGEN sources to show the source of the study and the view of Seralini.Hog1983 (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"WIKIPEDIA IS WRITTEN FROM A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." The article is clearly not neutral, not truthful, not balanced, not accurate, not reliable, and not independent... it is a piece of advocacy of a particular position, as well as being defamatory.Hog1983 (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We aim to use independent secondary sources where possible, see WP:SECONDARY, we use sources which are distanced from the dispute itself. Clearly "gmoseralini" is an advocacy website, unreliable per WP:RS. Be aware, language that invokes or appears to invoke legal threats can lead to blocks, see WP:NLT. Avoid the use of legal language as you are doing. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As I stated GMO Seralini is only being used in this talk to inform the editors who will now look at this article from the wikipedia dispute board, it will not be used as a source - you seem to ignore all serious discussion points - I have not made any legal threats and would not - I am afraid that your biased view of this article is endangering the reputation of wikipediaHog1983 (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no "wikipedia dispute board". NPOVN is simply a noticeboard. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the policies and guidelines which you have been linked to in this discussion. Also have a read of WP:AGF, WP:RGW and WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to read these guidelines but this does not change the fact that you are destroying one of the main pillars of Wikipedia and considering you obviously spend alot of time here I question your reasons for doing that - please consider answering my direct talk messages rather than going off on tangents.Hog1983 (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

When you have read the linked guidelines and policies, write a new proposal which conforms to those policies and guidlines. For short WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:OR. This essay may also be helpful: WP:SCIRS). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but using Wikipedia guidelines as a way of not answering serious questions does not hold any juice - please advise why Le Monde is not a reasonable source along with a letter from the head of Brazilian Food Safety?Hog1983 (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a primary source published by a fringe grouping in a newspaper. The sources we are using for the mainstream characterisation are of a much higher quality, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree - in fact the list includes some of the most respected scientists in France - was published in Le Monde - France's largest newspaper and regarding the Brazilian source it is from 6 of the 12 board members who decide on food safety in Brazil. Sorry but if you will not allow any edits I find it hard to understand why - because the sources that I am now quoting meet all Wiki guidelines which I have now read on your suggestionHog1983 (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record I remain entirely opposed to any of the proposed changes by this SPA editor. He has not made any attempt to understand the purpose of the wiki, and this page, and comes here with an obvious, clear, and unacceptable aim, i.e. to skew the NPOV away from consensus towards an extreme anti-GMO pov. He has been advised, warned, disciplined and remains unmoved by all the well meaning and tolerant editors trying to help. I think the only thing that would help @hog1983 now is to stop trying to influence this page for a while, and find another interesting, but less controversial subject on which to hone his editing skills, and wikiknowledge, otherwise he will become incredibly frustrated. Roxy the dog (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@roxy the dog - Does my opinion upset you? - I am learning that some editors are not happy with a balanced point of view! I am using good solid sources and using this talk to gather consensus - what else would you like me to do?Hog1983 (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a productive interaction, Hog and Roxy. Please discuss content, not contributors. Thx. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Change in Text - Support by Scientific Community as well as Criticism

Hog1983 (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

After reading the guidelines closely I propose a serious and well thought out change to the text:

Old text	Proposed new text
and involved the experiments conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini; the results were widely criticised by the scientific community	and involved the experiments conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini; the results were both supported and criticised by different sections of the scientific community

References for this change are:

• [4] - Brazilian scientists supporting Seralini in official letter to Brazilian food regulatory body
• [5] - 140 scientists supporting Seralini’s study
• [6] - Open letter to support Seralini from worldwide scientists

Other mentions of criticism by scientific community should also be changed in the article to include 'support' for a more balanced view.Hog1983 (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The mention in the talk above is of 'scientific consensus' - based on the opinion of the editors - not facts - Please use references to larger lists of scientists that refute the study than I have just provided who support the study. There is no 'consensus'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog1983 (talk • contribs)

This isn't a number counting game. Your sources are still unreliable and thus irrelevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I would not oppose leaving the current statement, and adding, "Some scientists expressed dismay over the intensity of the criticism and some scientists expressed support for Seralini's study and conclusions." Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am very happy with the addition suggested by Jytdog - as it is even more accurate than my suggestion. How do we reach consensus on this?Hog1983 (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Regarding unreliable sources - IRWolfie - is Le Monde unreliable and the letter to CTnBIO from CTnBIO members unreliable?Hog1983 (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The first source may not be reliable, but Le Monde certainly is, and the Open Letter in the Independent Science News gives an English version of the argument. Thus the two sources together, seem to me to support the point that the study by Seralini et. al. has been criticized in the scientific community. I think that the proposed wording heads in the right direction, but probably needs a bit more work. A peer reviewed study shows that a segment of the scientific community supports a particular point of view. No need to repeat that. What other issues need to be addressed to get consensus? Sunray (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Le Monde source is already there and has been for some time. AIRcorn (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the only consensus that needs reaching now is what the text changes will be exactly - I personally support balancing all mentions of the scientific community - saying they both criticize and support the study - using the 2 links provided to link to mentions of 'support', that the majority here agree with.Hog1983 (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC) If I have a go at editing in that way - I am happy for someone to then edit what I have suggested?Hog1983 (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hog1983 I know that you are passionate about this, but consensus takes time. Please be patient and give other editors who are working time to respond and discuss. It is often not a rapid process.Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing I realize that this is not a rapid process and am here to discuss when needed. Thank you JytdogHog1983 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There needs to be consensus on the wording and that needs to be done according to WP standards. With contentious issues, that can take time. I find that it is sometimes easier (and faster) to stay close to what sources actually say. By that I mean a close paraphrase, or an actual quote, from each side. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

See my comments in the previous section. Roxy the dog (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sunray regarding keeping close to the sources - My belief is that there is too much 'opinion' in this article in general - The sources need to be balanced on the page to - some pro-GM, some anti-GM seems fair - as there is no consensus in the scientific world or in the general public on this study and the issue in general.Hog1983 (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hog1983 you have still have made it very clear that you have come here with an agenda to make the article much more positive/supporting with respect to the Seralini study, and you have not made it clear (at all!) that you understand that in Wikipedia, we do not do "fair and balanced" as you describe it above and have said elsewhere. Wikipedia does not give various points of view equal weight -- Wikipedia gives different points of view different weights, based on reliable sources. The global warming article does NOT give equal weight to climate change deniers, for example, but does mention their perspective. Again I am really happy you are talking instead of edit warring and there is a lot we can hopefully talk through, but it will be sentence by sentence and source by source - and to say it again, the goal is not balance. It is much harder than that. I look forward to working with you, and hopefully in a civil manner! Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog: I understand completely that wikipedia does not have to show balanced views. I would like to point out that I am not suggesting it has to be balanced for the sake of balance - I am suggesting it has to be balanced due to the lack of 'consensus' in both the public, media and scientific communities. Suggesting that there is a 'consensus' in my view is factually wrong - as I have shown with solid sources in this chat. I like your approach to 'talk' and I will continue to engage with you on this subject. Suggestions that I 'have an agenda' are wrong ' I have a point of view' that is based on fact and I am willing to talk about.Hog1983 (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 07:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that I am not only going to concentrate on this article - but being new to Wikipedia - this is the first article I have discussed in detailHog1983 (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)07:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is definately a lack of consensus in the public and media communities and it is something I think we gloss over here a bit. It is most likely because many people who edit Wikipedia generally favour the scientific consensus and that consensus is pretty strong when it comes to GMO saftey in general (we just had a big discussion about this issue here). When it comes to this particular study it is even stronger. That is what is meant by keeping everything due. We can present the anti GMO side, but when it comes to the science we must give more weight to the scientific consensus.

As to the new sentence I would probably support something along the lines of "although 140 scientists expressed dismay over the intensity of the criticism and supported Seralini's study and conclusions in a letter to the French newspaper Le Monde." This would complement the current Le Monde paragraph in the article body. AIRcorn (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

With the links at the start of this conversation I think this is solid proof that there is no 'scientific consensus'@ Aircorn. Regarding the senetnece I think a both the 'independent science news' source and the Le Monde source should be mentioned - and the 'support' sentenece should be placed next to the sentences which mention 'scientific criticism'Hog1983 (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)10:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi hog - very recently, we ran a wikipedia "request for comment" on the issue of scientific consensus on the relative safety of genetically modified food that is currently on the market - the link to that is here. The result was "consensus was that the statement is reasonable given editors' evaluations of the sources. "Broad scientific consensus" was most strongly supported by evidence that large-scale medical and empirical research organizations such as the AAAS, WHO, and AMA have issued statements that are consistent with the general opinion of the scientific community" Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the letter published in Le Monde is adequately covered in the body of the article, and it would be giving it far too much weight to further emphasise it higher up in the article.--Roxy the dog (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not only suggest the Le Monde source but others too above that show that there is no 'scientific consensus' - therefore the mention of 'criticism' should be balanced with 'support' throughout the article Hog1983 (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There already is due balance in the article, your references do not show there is no scientific consensus. Therefore your conclusion is not viable. --Roxy the dog (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Roxy the Dog - I purely think that you are wrong and other people in this section of talk agree that a text change is neededHog1983 (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Who would that be? Roxy the dog (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Sunray @Jytdog @ircorn have all entered the converstaion and offered possibilitiesn - you have not Hog1983 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hog, I think it is time you moved away from the "no scientific consensus" as all the evidence, plus the official Wiki opinion in Jytdogs post, is against you. -- re text changes proposed, possibilities, perhaps. Agreement, not yet. --Roxy the dog (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments Roxy the dog are of no use to me or this section of talk as you do not take part in conversations in a positive manner, scientific discussions deserve a scientific approach.Hog1983 (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your scientific approach over the last few days has been amazing. Ignoring the evidence, poor sources, and synthesis. Well done. On a positive note I can happily report that 140 scientists writing a letter to Le Monde is a homeopathic drop in the ocean of scientific consensus. That's a scientific approach.--Roxy the dog (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This 'talk' is not for abuse or comments that might offend - please refrain from this tone and discuss correctly as per the rules on Wikipedia, which I can not quote but know they are there. Can we please get back to discussing possible changes / or not to text and reasons for it.Hog1983 (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way Hog, if you read the Le Monde letter, the scientists involved do not support Seralini's conclusions, pointing out serious flaws in the paper. They were certainly objecting to the way the study was received though. You should strike this from your bullet points of support for Seralini. --Roxy the dog (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

- Bad interpretatioin Roxy the dog - I will leave others to decide what is the correct route to take. I will not be commenting further in these discussions. I just hope that the serious wikipedia editors here see that there is the possibility that science and the science media is sadly being taken over by big business and this is a complete disatser for independent science in general. Those funded by big business or blinded by them will obviously not agree with me - sadly human nature - good luck everyone and I hope you are 100% sure that you are doing the right thing - as this is a game that involves all of us. When you have seen deaths and severe illness in the Phillipines related to GM Maize pollen tests or a rise of birth defects of over 900% after excessive Roundup spraying of villages amongst GM crops in Argentina you would change your mind as I did. Please think very deeply. I had the same arguments with people over Agent Orange in the 1980s - look what happened! Hog1983 (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how does this tirade relate to our article on the Seralini Affair? - If nobody objects, I would like to figure out how to deal with Hogs two templates on this page, and remove them. Roxy the dog (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I was advised to place that template on these discussions by the mediation board so that would be unwise Roxy the dog - and as is stated in Wiki rules personal opinions are allowed in talk sections - which is what I was sharing. I find it quite funny that Roxy the dog advises me to learn wiki rules as a newbie - I go away learn wiki rules and then they decide to criticize every comment I makeHog1983 (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Link me to that mediation board advice please. Thank you.--Roxy the dog (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention to communicate with you further on any matter on this or any other page I may edit - I have requested outside comment purely because of your unhelpful behaviour - I will happily communicate with other editors Hog1983 (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

@hog. If you are going then OK, but if you are staying, can you please explain what you meant by the phrase " I have also suggest that you and Jytdog may be more than similar." which is still in the page history? Thank you. --Roxy the dog (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please can we have some other editors commenting on this page and suggesting possible changes to textHog1983 (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 00:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Old text should stand. The new text would give equal validity to a fringe position which would violate WP:VALID. Séralini's study is overwhelmingly rejected in the science community. Overall support for the study is minimal. There is no major scientific organization that has given any credence to Séralini's study. BlackHades (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Section on Sprauge Dawley Rats - Editor Opinion Used

Hog1983 (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that this section is deleted as it is biased and factually wrong:

"Many claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study. Sprague-Dawley rats have a lifespan of about two years and have a high tendency to get cancer over their lifespan (one study found that over eighty percent of males and over seventy percent of females got cancer under normal conditions).[33][34][35] The Séralini experiment lasted the normal lifespan of these rats, and the longer the experiment goes, the more statistical "noise" there is - the more rats get cancer naturally, regardless of what you do to them. So for the experiment to have adequate statistical power, all the groups - control groups and test groups - would have to include at least 65 rats per group in order to sort out any experimentally caused cancers from cancers that would occur anyway - but the Séralini study had only ten per group.[32] OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) guidelines recommend 20 rats for chemical-toxicity studies, and 50 rats for carcinogenicity studies.[36]:5-6 In addition, if the survival of the rats is less than 50% at 104 weeks (which is likely given the Sprague-Dawley rats used in the study) the recommended number of rats is 65.[32][34][35] Kings College London Professor Tom Sanders[37] wrote that since Sprague-Dawley rats are susceptible to mammary tumors when food intake is not restricted, data should have been provided about how much food the rats were fed (as well as the presence of fungus in the feed, another confounder). Sanders also wrote of this study, "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."[38] The Washington Post quoted Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University and food safety advocate: "'[I] can’t figure it out yet....It’s weirdly complicated and unclear on key issues: what the controls were fed, relative rates of tumors, why no dose relationship, what the mechanism might be. I can’t think of a biological reason why GMO corn should do this.....So even though I strongly support labeling, I’m skeptical of this study.'"[39] Maurice Moloney, among others, went on record wondering why there were so many pictures in the study, and in sympathetic news reports about it, of treated rats with horrific tumors, but no pictures of the rats in the control group."

Reason:

The National Toxicology Program in the US uses the same SD rat from the same source as Séralini’s rats (Harlan) for its long-term 2-year carcinogenicity and toxicology studies. None of these researchers or research programmes has been challenged over their use of SD rats.

Reference: National Toxicology Program. Toxicology/Carcinogenicity. 2012. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=72015DAF-BDB7-CEBA-F9A7F9CAA57DD7F5 Hog1983 (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal is original research. The content you wish to remove is sourced content. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment - what is original research?

Hi Hog1983, first let me say thank you for discussing rather than edit warring! You are clearly passionate about this, and I appreciate your restraint and patience in following Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Now.. to it. The link you provide above, says very clearly "The NTP long-term toxicology and carcinogenesis studies (bioassays) in rodents generally employ both sexes of rats (Harlan Sprague Dawley) and mice (B6C3F1/N hybrid) with three exposure concentrations plus untreated controls in groups of 50 animals for two years." As the article currently and clearly points out, the key criticism of Seralini's study design (not the interpretation of results which has other issues), is that his lab used only 10 SD rats per arm in a lifetime study. This was not a high enough N to make the data interpretable in a lifetime study. Again as our article points out, OECD guidelines call for 65 rats per arm in a lifetime study of rats like the SD rat; you have now provided a new source that we did not have, where it is clear that the NTP calls for at least 50 rats per arm when the SD rats in particular are used in a lifetime study of SD rats. You have just provided more support for the key flaw in the study and why it was rejected by the scientific community. I know that Seralini has said over and over "it is the same rat that Monsanto uses!!" but this is a diversion from the criticism that it is the overall design - length of study PLUS type of animal PLUS number of animals -- all three together - that rendered the data uninterpretable. 2 month study + SD rats + 10 rats per arm (what Monsanto and other companies submitting tox data do), you can get interpretable data; 2 year study + SD rats + 50 to 65 rats per arm (what OECD and NTP call for), you can get interpretable data; 2 year study + SD rats + 10 rats per arm (what Seralini did) you get noise that you cannot interpret. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to answer this in full if I may in a few hours - however in the mean time I would just like to point out that the Seralini study was not a carcinogenesis study - I will give more deatil shortly - I understand your view Jytdog but I would like to try and give you some more detailed information on the 10 rat assessment process and on why 50-65 was not required. Hog1983 (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Summary: This criticism hinges on the incorrect assumption that Séralini’s study was intended to be a carcinogenicity study. The critics say that Séralini used too few rats, of a strain prone to tumours, so the tumours seen may have occurred spontaneously and no conclusions can be drawn.

But Séralini designed his study as a chronic toxicity study, not a carcinogenicity study. The increase in tumour incidence was a surprise outcome. No existing data from the developer of NK603 maize, Monsanto, or elsewhere indicated that NK603 maize or Roundup were carcinogenic. Unless Séralini had employed Mystic Meg as his adviser, there was no reason for him to embark on a carcinogenicity study. A dedicated carcinogenicity study would have involved using five times more animals and would have made the study virtually impossible to afford by an independent academic research group.

The omission in this case is not Séralini’s but that of industry and regulators. Industry has failed to carry out carcinogenicity studies on GMOs or complete herbicide formulations like Roundup before releasing them onto world markets, and regulators have failed to require them.Hog1983 (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

After reading the guidelines closely I propose a serious and well thought out change to the text:

Old text	Proposed new text
Many claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study.	Some experts claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study while other experts backed his statistical methods.

References for change:

a) Deheuvels P. Étude de Séralini sur les OGM: Pourquoi sa méthodologie est statistiquement bonne [Seralini study on GMOs: Why the methodology is statistically sound]. Le Nouvel Observateur. 9 October 2012. http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/646458-etude-sur-les-ogm-une-methodologie-statistiquement-bonne.html?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=widget&utm_campaign=obclick&obref=obinsource

b) Saunders P. Excess cancers and deaths with GM feed: The stats stand up. Science in Society. 16 October 2012.Hog1983 (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not bulk-paste copyrighted material here. A link suffices. a13ean (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have permission to use this material and have not just used a link as I have changed order to make more sense for this discussion. Is that ok?Hog1983 (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the main text - I was just trying to use a reference for discussion - The source was not ISIS. It is GMO Seralini: http://gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralini-used-too-few-animals/ - which was written by a group of scientists and citizens. I do not agree that this source is not a note worthy source - as it is the only website on the internet that covers this subject exclusively and has multiple expert editors.Hog1983 (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In this context a reliable source is, essentially, a peer-reviewed journal, a book from an academic press, or a story in a newspaper that has an editorial board. Do you have any such sources ? Sunray (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hog1983, with respect to your comments above, I repeat the quote from the NTP piece you linked to, with emphasis added this time: "The NTP long-term toxicology and carcinogenesis studies (bioassays) in rodents generally employ both sexes of rats (Harlan Sprague Dawley) and mice (B6C3F1/N hybrid) with three exposure concentrations plus untreated controls in groups of 50 animals for two years." Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

See my comments in the previous two sections. Roxy the dog (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Roxy, I've read your comments in the two previous sections, but don't see any substantive comments. Talk pages are for discussion of content. If you concerns about a particular editor there are noticeboards where you can take them. Sunray (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sunray: I will try and find some more soild sources for this - before continuing with this specific conversation - asap: as they do exist just I will have to trawl to find them. Roxy - I don't understand why I am not allowed to put forward a factual based argument - I am a newbie and will be looking at other articles too. Hog1983 (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 07:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sunray no, newspapers are often unreliable when it comes to controversial science articles. Reliability is, as always, dependent on what you do with it. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think that this a very important point. It always depends how a source is used. A newspaper is good at reporting on events and summarizing issues. A newspaper article would not be used to counter findings of peer-reviewed research. Sunray (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie - But newspaper articles with a specific slant are used throughout the article - even though the majority of media coverage on this study did not have this slant, therefore - who decides which mainstream newspaper articles can and can't be used?

Examples of media coverage and science media coverage with a different slant than the ones used: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/gm-maize-and-its-health-implications-humans http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/corinne-lepage/ogm-une-etude-et-une-demarche-historiques_b_1907658.html?utm_hp_ref=france http://www.medscape.fr/oncologie/articles/1452135/ http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Match-Doc-le-prix-de-la-v%C3%A9rit%C3%A9-17-janv-2013.pdf - This is a Paris Match article ignore the link.Hog1983 (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear on your point here. Citing specific examples is usually a good idea in discussions (i.e., use an example from the article to illustrate your question). It is difficult to deal in generalities. The answer to who decides: Wikipedia editors on the article talk page. Editors discuss issues and reach consensus (which is not necessarily unanimity, BTW). If the editors on a talk page cannot reach consensus, there are several options. A request for comment is often used. In such cases a clear question is crucial. Sunray (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to point out, using sources, that there is no consensus on any of the issues regarding this study - either in the scientific community, the media or ethe public - however I agree with you Sunray - I will stick to the exact pointHog1983 (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sunray I would like to use a solid source as suggested of the once voted top statician in France, Paul Deheuvels, explaining how the Spraugue Dawley statistics were used correctly due to the study design: This is in support of my suggested exact text change: http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/646458-etude-sur-les-ogm-une-methodologie-statistiquement-bonne.html?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=widget&utm_campaign=obclick&obref=obinsourceHog1983 (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if you used sources that have not been dismissed as inadequate before on this talk page, and were not from the gmoseralini website, which is of poor quality as regards reliability. As "a top expert on scientific protocols for GMO companies" you really should know all this.Roxy the dog (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Roxy the dog: I have clearly not used gmoseralini as a source except for a translated article from French - for the purposes of people who do not speak that language - as I stated when I used this link.Hog1983 (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hog, you have not responded to my comment above - I repeat it here with an addition: Hog1983, with respect to your comments above, I repeat the quote from the NTP piece you linked to, with emphasis added this time: "The NTP long-term toxicology and carcinogenesis studies (bioassays) in rodents generally employ both sexes of rats (Harlan Sprague Dawley) and mice (B6C3F1/N hybrid) with three exposure concentrations plus untreated controls in groups of 50 animals for two years." We now have two of the top scientific standard setting bodies in the world (OECD and NTP)- not just one guy -- who say that 50/65 of this type of rat are needed for a tox study of this length of time. And this criticism was repeated in the many, many assessments by national food safety bodies that reviewed the Seralini study. This is what we mean by giving weight according to the sources. Also even if we were to use something about Deheuvels' remarks, a) we need something in English, and b) they are of yet lower weight because it is an opinion piece published by one guy (an eminent one yes, but one guy) in a newspaper - much less reliable than standards or reviews issued by scientific bodies or a peer reviewed paper. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog : I'm afraid the conclusions of your mentioned scientific bodies are based on innacurate and not complete work on their part, that experts on protocols would support me on: OECD 453, the combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity protocol, requires ten animals per sex per group for the chronic toxicity phase (the same number used by Séralini), but 50 per sex per group for the carcinogenicity phase. An important point, given the controversy over what conclusions can or cannot be drawn from Séralini’s study, is that OECD 453 cautions that the interpretation of findings in the chronic toxicity phase relies on the larger number of animals (50 per sex per group) in the carcinogenicity phase of the experiment.Séralini did not have the resources to do a full-scale carcinogenicity study. Accordingly, he did not draw conclusions about carcinogenicity and did not perform a statistical analysis on the tumour incidence or mortality effects. He simply noted details of the tumour occurrence and growth in all groups, in line with rigorous scientific practice and the requirements of the chronic toxicity phase of OECD protocol. Please answer this point directly - thank you for you continued well intentioned communicationj on this matter.Hog1983 (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hog... it appears that this is your own analysis (which is "original research" - please see WP:OR) of how the standards should be applied to Seralini's studies. However, as mentioned, the many many national food safety bodies that reviewed the study - and published their reviews - found that 10 animals were not sufficient. Also, and I cannot help saying this -- if carcinogenicity was not Seralini's focus, why in the world did he feature those huge photos of tumorous rats at his press conference? That is just a shot - the real point is that published, very reliable sources contract what appears to be your OR on the numbers. Jytdog (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog - this is not my analysis - or original source - it is purely following the whole base for this study - which anyone who edits this page should be aware of - as without linking to the protocol for the experiment - all 'views' and 'reviews' of the study or the point we are now discussing are pointless: OECD 453: http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/41362977.pdf In fact I will start a new conversation on this as it is a huge point that has been missed out of the article.Hog1983 (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Page 5 Point 19. Here is very important to show why all criticisms in this article regarding Sprauge Dawley rats and Statistics should be removed: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9745301e.pdf?expires=1377263003&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=8E44A5A26113ACA898E0144E1057F95B, This is the source for removal of criticism of basic use of Sprauge Dawley rats: National Toxicology Program. Toxicology/Carcinogenicity. 2012. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=72015DAF-BDB7-CEBA-F9A7F9CAA57DD7F5Hog1983 (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a point 9 on page 5. --Roxy the dog (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry point 19.Hog1983 (talk) 13

02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I am unable to access your link. Roxy the dog (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hog, you are asking all of us to do original research WP:OR here to overturn what the most reliable sources - and many of them - have already stated in published responses -- they have already applied the standards to the Seralini studies and found the Seralini study wanting. This is not the place or the way to challenge their work. You need to bring reliable sources WP:RS of equal or greater authority to that say that the Seralini studies were properly designed. See also WP:WEIGHT. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Jyt I actually am asking for a link to the original source protocol for the experiment - not for any original rsearch - with specific page reference to be put on the article. The original protocol is the source of this whole article. This is not original research - it is a scientific protocol that has been quoted before in this Talk by you.Hog1983 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Before quoting a protocol you need to know what it says. Hog1983 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry we are in a section of Talk that you created, where you want to delete a section criticizing the study design in light of the standards - a section that is based on secondary sources. We cannot use the primary source that was available to Seralini and the study's critics as a basis for refuting either side... for an editor to do so, he/she would need to add some original research. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean Jytdog. Thta makes sense - however i hoped you personally managed to have a look so that you can see that not all the secondary sources used are accurate with their criticisms - it is important that we all go into scientific discussions with an open mind which I can see you doHog1983 (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Hog1983. I want to be honest with you -- I have read deeply in this area and I think Seralini's trajectory is tragic. He started out doing food safety and was even on the French GMO advisory board, and when he became concerned that trials were not long enough, he started (working with very little!) trying to argue that food from the GMOs that had been tested was toxic - pushing the data too hard from day one and getting roundly rejected. The more rejected he was, the more wild he became, over the past six years. I imagine that he would be very happy if regulations were changed such that much longer studies were required to obtain approval to market GM foods. That, I believe, is his goal. Since that viewpoint is outside the consensus, he has a high barrier to cross, to overturn the consensus. His 2012 paper could have done it, had he come with extraordinary data. He did not – he used only 10 rats per arm. Had he used at least 65, had he controlled for and recorded the variables that critics have brought up, had he disclosed the underlying data — in other words – earnestly sought to make a compelling case that his experiments were designed to discover reality as best the scientific method can do that and that he indeed had made findings about reality that his data fully support — I truly believe that he could have changed the consensus. That the critics speaking today would have had nothing to say.. The truth will out. But the 2012 paper was nothing like that. Now, Seralini made it clear that the work behind the 2012 paper cost 3M euros (the amount that journalists who breached his confidentiality agreement by getting other scientists’ opinions on the work would have been liable to pay). If he had done 65 rats per arm, the study would have cost 19.5M euros. Huge. So if you are in that position – what do you? Do fewer arms (say only 2) but with an adequate number of rats per arm? Do you perhaps publicize that you intend to do the definitive study on the safety of GM corn and that you are seeking 20M euros in funding to conduct it, and run a fund raising campaign first? (with the number of people who are worried (which is not insignificant!) I can only imagine this would have gone very well, and he may well have been able to get government funding for it) Do you pre-publicize your protocols to have a good faith discussion about what experimental design mainstream scientists would find acceptable, to eliminate that as a way to criticize the resulting data when you are done? He did none of those. Instead he did 10 rats per arm and had that horrid press conference with big photos of nasty rat tumors. And the result was another resounding failure to convince anybody in the mainstream — which was his goal – that he is right. I have no interest in vilifying Seralini or his team. I think he honestly believes that our methods for assessing GM food are not adequate, and he is worried that GM food on the market is harming people. These are important issues. I like iconoclasts. They often have great things to teach us, and humans in general are far too prone to living in bubbles and following habits of thought. However, to date, his lab has failed to make a compelling case that he is right and that the consensus should be overturned. Saying that, is not vilifying him in any way. So that is where I am coming from. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog, although I disagree with some of your points - I do agree that you are coming from a sincere angle. I would like at least some small edits to be made to the tone of the article and I think we will both agree that this is quite logical? - I think we would also both agree that some editors of this page are not 'helpful' to discussion? - the way that absolutely all edits are refused is a little annoying. However, I do agree that some criticisms of the study are understandable - it was not perfect (nor have any studies on GMOs been sadly). I am all for more solid testing from truely independent sources and I assure you this will be / is taking placeHog1983 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 13:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hog. With respect to "other editors" (by whom I assume you mean User:Roxy the dog - and btw I really hate it when editors make allusions to other editors like that - if you want to criticize somebody (and if the criticism is appropriate) then say their name and link to their username as I did here, so they are notified) - I agree that Roxy is writing too much about you and not enough about content. But you have to acknowledge as well that you have written some unwise, newbie-type things -- I tried to warn you on your Talk page that this is what happens when you don't know what you are doing yet and you get aggressive.). When someone is attacking you (or approaching that, I am not judging at this point), the best thing is to stay calm, respond to points related to content and policy, and if that fails, WP:SHUN. Roxy, I would say the same to you! But to the topic -- the key points in what I wrote above are supported by the weight of reliable sources (that the conclusions he has drawn from studies to date have have been rejected by the scientific community; that he has not overturned the consensus) - other stuff, like where I am guessing Seralini is coming from and my wishes about what he had done, are of course my own speculation and thinking. If you have reliable sources that say otherwise on the key points, I am all ears. If there are tone-related edits you would like to make, I am all ears as well, although I believe the current article is written with a neutral point of view as per WP:NPOV. But like I said, what I think is neutral tone, you might find non-neutral. Thanks again for discussing. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do mean Roxy the dog - sorry for not stating this - I have not been aggressive in anyway - just emotional in one comment - I have absolute certainty that this article is not written with a neutral point of view and would like some tone changes - using sources such as the Le Monde letter mentioned in previous section. I believe that the current media articles are also all biased on one side of argument Hog1983 (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

addition of infobox with information on seralini himself

User:Jinkinson added an info box with personal/professional information on Seralini, via these difs. After some consideration, I deleted them in this dif. My edit note states: "After some consideration, I am Reverting the Bold addition of the infobox. Plenty of people see this article as a personal attack on Seralini himself, which it is not. Infobox would maybe make it look that way even more to them. Please discuss on Talk". That's about all I have to say right now but I wanted to kick off the discussion. I am not saying Jinkinson was at all trying to make this article more personalized about Seralini; I am saying that it seems likely to me that people will take it that way, which is not helpful to the article's goal of describing the affair itself. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your decision to remove the infobox for the reasons you have given. Sunray (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Alphabet soup

Just a reminder to veteran editors. Please do not pepper your comments with unlinked Wikipedia acronyms. There are newbies here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder - too easy to forget that. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you talkin to me? Are You Talkin To Me? I only used one. Roxy the dog (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Belgian BAC discussion

IRWolfie and I seem to have a problem about the Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council... 74.51.53.80 (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

due to my newbie status, I didn't realise the difference between "article talk" and "user talk". a better distinction should be made by editors. the editor with an incomprehension should not only invite the editor s/he attempts to revert, it may well be incumbent upon him/her to start an "article talk" page and link to it in the "edit summary". see "alphabet soup" above.

hi IRWolfie, just want to open a Talk about the BRD edit you, me and jytdog are having about the Seralini affair wiki. It centres on the Belgian BAC summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.53.80 (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

here is my suggested edit to "2012 study and release", that you dislike:

According to the Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council, "The starting point to design the study was the usual parameters for a 90-day toxicity study (OECD Guideline No 408) to which the authors added some additional parameters and prolonged biochemical and haematological measurements or disease status as recommended for combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies (they refer to OECD Guideline No 453). The OECD Guideline No 453 recommends that each dose group and concurrent control group intended for the chronic toxicity phase of a study should contain at least 10 animals of each sex..."

You previously stated in the first reversion 08:56, 22 August 2013‎ that " I don't see where http://www.bio-council.be/docs/BAC_2012_0898_CONSOLIDE.pdf says that" therefore I quoted directly (above).

Do you now see where http://www.bio-council.be/docs/BAC_2012_0898_CONSOLIDE.pdf says that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.53.80 (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would suggest starting an article talk page discussion. I'll address your comments there, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Because IRWolfie has failed to open a section on the *article* talk in 3 days, it falls to me.

Just a quick note, 74.51.53.80. Please read WP:BRD. If you add material and it is reverted, it is on you to start a discussion on Talk. (yes it is nice if the one who reverts starts the discussion, but the responsibility is actually on the one who made the initial change). This is a real encyclopedia and while in general your edits have been great, it is your responsibility to take the initiative to learn how things work. Please do not mistake the open nature of WIkipedia for a lack of policy and guidelines, or as an excuse to remain ignorant of policies and guidelines, especially when you are making extensive edits. But again, generally your edits have been helpful and compliant with guidelines and policies. Thanks for that! Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The onus to start a talk page discussion is always on the person making the change, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying IRWolfie. The onus is also on the person who objects to indicate how to start a discussion on the *article* talk page by linking to it. Thanks for your future correction of your stance, as it will make you a more valued contributor to these pages. 66.185.212.81 (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

summary to date

it is not unreasonable to insert a paragraph on "2012 study and release" on what Seralini tried to accomplish with his study, which is indicated here by a direct quote from a reliable source. 74.51.53.80 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have an issue with what you have done here, in that selecting that quote gives the impression that the design of the study was just fine with BAC, but the letter goes to criticize the application of those principles to the experiment that was actually done. Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with having the BAC letter used as a source - ity is mainly positive about the study design and alongisde the Le Monde letter mentioned in previous talk section - they should be used together to suggest some support for study.Hog1983 (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The conclusion of the Belgian letter is good reading -

"Given the shortcomings identified by the experts regarding the experimental design, the statistical analysis, the interpretation of the results, the redaction of the article and the presentation of the results, The Biosafety Advisory Council concludes that this study does not contain new scientifically relevant elements that may lead to reconsider immediately the current authorisation for food and feed use of gm maize NK603."

A sound endorsement if ever there was one, don't you think? --Roxy the dog (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

jytdog: the criticism of the study does come later, in the 'reactions to' section, whereas it is helpful in the '2012 article' section to have an unbiased source describe what Seralini had intended to show. how about we agree to add "The Belgian BAC (whose caveat is noted in the next section) ..." or words to that effect? 66.185.212.81 (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are the same person as 74.51.53.80 or not. In any case, I don't know if we want the article to say anything about Seralini's intentions per se, as the only person who knows his intentions is him (and whether any of us understands our intentions is a question) If when you say "intentions" you mean something about the relationship between the study design and the various OECD protocols, that is already covered in the Scientific Evaluation section. But perhaps I am not understanding you. Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

yes i am 74.* the problem as I see it is that certain editors prevent Seralini et al speaking for themselves because it is allegedly [[WP::OR]] to cite a primary source. If we accept that objection, the Belgian BAC--a reputable secondary source--provides a fair description. We need not go into questions of whether or not we understand our own intentions. That seems to me to be too postmodern an objection for the science we aim to portray with this article. 66.185.212.81 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I see the problem you are trying to address - you want a statement, maybe in the "2012 study and release" where the authors' application of the guidelines to the their study is stated. I went to the article and looked for something really clear, and unfortunately what they write is opaque. It says "With a view to address this lack of information, we have performed a 2 year detailed rat feeding study. The actual guideline 408 of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was followed by some manufacturers for GMOs even if it was not designed for that purpose. We have explored more parameters and more frequently than recommended in this standard (Table 1) in a long-term experiment. This allowed us to follow in details potential health effects and their possible origins due to the direct or indirect consequences of the genetic modification itself in GMOs, or due to the formulated herbicide mixture used on GMOs (and not glyphosate alone), or both. Because of recent reviews on GMOs (Domingo and Giné Bordonaba, 2011 and Snell et al., 2011) we had no reason to settle at first for a carcinogenesis protocol using 50 rats per group. However we have prolonged the biochemical and hematological measurements or disease status recommended in combined chronic studies using 10 rats per group (up to 12 months in OECD 453). This remains the highest number of rats regularly measured in a standard GMO diet study. We have tested also for the first time 3 doses (rather than two in the usual 90 day long protocols) of the R-tolerant NK603 GM maize alone, the GM maize treated with R, and R alone at very low environmentally relevant doses starting below the range of levels permitted by regulatory authorities in drinking water and in GM feed." I don't find that gives much clarity at all. And I have no idea what they meant in the sentence "Because of recent reviews...we had no reason to settle at first for a carcinogenesis protocol using 50 rats per group" This is the absolute key point of most critics, and the explanation is unhelpful. I would say that if there was anything helpful here, we could indeed have content based on it in the article, in that section - but sticking very very close to what the paper says, with no interpretation. That is an OK way to use a primary source. But I don't find anything here helpful! What do you see that is helpful? (btw my remark about intentions was kind of tongue in cheek, but for all I knew you really did want to say something about his intentions) Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Seralini et al would have profited greatly from a native English proofreader (or three). That's why I like the Belgian BAC summary in four lines, above. It's short and punchy. If you wish to modify it with 'caveat below' be my guest. I find that text humour is a minefield. Thanks for your helpful and gracious post. 66.185.212.81 (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Seralini validated by new EFSA guidelines on long-term GMO experiments

http://gmoseralini.org/seralini-validated-by-new-efsa-guidelines-on-long-term-gmo-experiments/

See also "Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup- tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23146697

This can be read in full here: http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Seralinial-AnswersCritics-FCT_2013.pdf198.189.184.243 (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is some content you wish to propose for the article, please do so. Thanks. The GMOseralini site is not a reliable source and the opinion piece by Seralini is not either. The EFSA document is interesting but for it it be included in Wikipedia we need a neutral, reliable source interpreting it and relating it to the 2012 publication. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog is correct. For something of this nature, we need the material interpreted in a reliable source. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC))

I agree with those who agree with Jytdog, such as AfadsBad. The specific problems with the IP's argument are that it ignores that the EFSA has a whole webpage dedicated to debunking the Seralini paper, in which they state: "EFSA’s initial review found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate. The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested." [7] This would seem to contradict claims that the EFSA said the Seralini paper was right. Jinkinson (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The "opinion piece" by Seralini is published in a reputable journal, and addresses all the criticisms - it certainly warrants inclusion. The discussion of the EFSA admission I linked to essentially means this - that in spite of the selective vitriol they issued towards Seralini, his protocols are ultimately valid.

The Corporate Europe Observatory, an independent EU corporate watchdog group, when writing about the EFSA response to Seralini, concluded, "EFSA failed to properly and transparently appoint a panel of scientists beyond any suspicion of conflict of interests; and it failed to appreciate that meeting with Europe’s largest biotech industry lobby group to discuss GMO risk assessment guidelines in the very middle of a EU review undermines its credibility.": http://corporateeurope.org/news/how-efsa-dealt-french-gm-study-which-lessons

That article is fascinating for the depths of conflicts of interest it reveals with the EFSA. The following is also relevant, as it highlights conflicts of interest not confined to this case: http://corporateeurope.org/efsa/2011/11/approving-gm-potato-conflicts-interest-flawed-science-and-fierce-lobbying

Harry Kuiper, who chairs the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the EFSA since 2003: http://binas.unido.org/research/furarn/kuiper.php, also is problematic - Appendix 2, p. 16 of the following report, relevant to the above item pertaining to 2011, notes the major conflicts of interest he has, including with the ILSI, a biotech company front, and more blatant conflicts of interest of the other EFSA panelists: http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/amflora_coi_report_2011.pdf

The following letter notes a problem particularly with regards to Kuiper: http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/PR_Ombudsman_Complaint_Kuiper.pdf that links to a complaint: http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/Testbiotech%20complaint%20EU%20Ombudsman_Kuiper_1.pdf, which has an interesting paragraph (p. 3) - "While in October 2010 his DOI [Declaration of Interest] stated he would have affiliations with ILSI from 2000 "till now" (attached), his DOI in March [2011] stated affiliations with ILSI till 2005 (attached)."

Pages 17-18 of the ILSI's 2011 annual report shows very blatantly that the board of trustees is in conflict of interest - with members including (and trustees being members of) Monsanto, ADM, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Nestle, McDonalds, BASF, etc, etc: http://www.ilsi.org/Documents/ILSI_AR2011_rFinal.pdf

The ILSI has a weasel-worded way of being an advocate while denying that it is an advocate, stating that "Advocacy of any kind is strictly limited to the use of science as an aid in decision-making.": http://www.ilsi.org/Pages/Scientific-Integrity.aspx

The aforementioned organization, Corporate Europe Observatory, produced it's very own report all about the ILSI "The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a corporate lobby group", which explores the details and minutia of the fact of conflict of interests with ILSI membership and specific cases where it has exerted pressure in ways showing that it is an industry front group: http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/ilsi-article-final.pdf

The following report, "Conflicts on the menu: a decade of industry influence at the European Food Safety Authority" really sums everything up. It notes the EFSA's denial of that problem and refutes that denial: http://corporateeurope.org/efsa/2012/02/conflicts-menu198.189.184.243 (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, if there is some content you wish to propose for the article, please do so. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not ([please see WP:NOT) a billboard or news site. Quick comment on your notes above - if you want to challenge the reliability of any source currently used in the article, you can bring that source to the reliable source notice board Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard; for sources used to support anything related to health, the more appropriate board is Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) - and of course do post info here that you are doing that. I think in either place you will find little traction for ruling out any source based solely on the affiliation of an author.Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I desire that Seralini's response to criticism, published in a mainstream journal, and the discussion linked to showing how the EFSA, in spite of its attack on Seralini, has indirectly validated his protocols (which, from my understanding, comes not just from a random source, but from a source connected to Seralini - and some of the other papers linked here are also of interest in that regard: http://gmoseralini.org/research-papers/) - all be included in the article. And also, conflicts of interest are a major issue, not one of mere "affiliation", and the information provided in this section of the talk page should be enough for anyone to see the severe problem, and consequent corruption, that exists in the EFSA. We have enough material here to note that also in the article. This is also interesting: http://gmoseralini.org/faq-items/what-was-the-reaction-to-the-study-2/ - the section entitled "support" is worth noting (including the compilation of letters of support he has recieved from other scientists: http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/supportletters-seralini-1.pdf, http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/supportletters-seralini-2.pdf) - I desire that some of the sources that are footnotes to that article also be used in this wikipedia article, as well as some of sources that are footnotes in that article informing the other information regarding the connections of the critics to the GM industry.198.189.184.243 (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggest a sentence from his reply that should be added to the article. Just a sentence, no commentary from you. Thanks. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

This is difficult to do, since there were many criticisms he he attempted to deal with - table one of the full text of the article gives a glimpse of this: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512008149# - a better choice would be to have a "response to criticisms" section, with the sentence being (this is derived from the header of each section of the response) - "Seralini attempted to answer and refute all the criticisms of his original study in a March 2013 article in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, where he provided a table summarizing the criticisms and giving responses, and focused in particular on the relevance of the study's scientific context, focused on the originality and limits of the experimental design of the study, gave a defense of the choice of the strain of rat used in the study, provided a focus on statistical analytical methods and outcomes, and focused on the pertinence of the results of the study." Then I would suggest linking to this via cite PMID as the reference at the end of that sentence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23146697198.189.184.243 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, just suggest text to insert! I agree that his response can be included in the article, in context, as a primary source, but, once you have sold something, it is tme to stop trying to sell and deliver the product. What and where? --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)) And yes, it will be cited. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

In a response to criticisms section, to be put at the very end of the article - I propose including the single sentence suggested above beginning with "Seralini attempted to answer", that summarizes his response to criticisms, as focus on just one issue doesn't cover the breadth of criticisms, and he attempts to respond to several criticisms.198.189.184.243 (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition, please comment

"Seralini attempted to answer and refute all the criticisms of his original study in a March 2013 article in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, where he provided a table summarizing the criticisms and giving responses, and focused in particular on the relevance of the study's scientific context, focused on the originality and limits of the experimental design of the study, gave a defense of the choice of the strain of rat used in the study, provided a focus on statistical analytical methods and outcomes, and focused on the pertinence of the results of the study."

It gives very little content, just describes the article, and, as such, is not inappropriate until the article's notability is established. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

Do you maybe mean, "is not inappropriate"? :) I think even that is too long. I would be OK with something much more simple like, "Seralini has responded to some of the criticisms and defended his refusal to release his raw data." The word "some" is important.Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice mindreading, I am on mobile. Yes, your sentence, mentioning article and source would be better. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

 Done Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

actually, even shorter is better: "Seralini has responded to some of the criticisms" - the last bit is redundant.Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

In the article, Seralini stated "Many critics argue against our refusal to release all the raw data generated in our study. This is a very unusual request when we clearly stated that we plan several other papers out of this data set. Our study was not performed for regulatory purposes. However, due to the social impact and for full scientific understanding of the potential risks associated NK603 GM maize and R, we will release our raw data if the regulatory agencies that have taken industry data into account in their approval of their products also release the data pertinent for environmental and health risk assessments, in particular their longest toxicological tests on mammals, as we have indicated in our correspondence with EFSA. As a first step to this end, we have communicated the raw data underlying the data presented in Figs. 1 and 2 to the French food safety agency (ANSES), and answered their questions on experimental design and results, including analysis of food composition and mycotoxin content, etc."

I think what he contends at this point is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Let's limit it until we get commentary in RS on this article. It will come. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

I think an update of the edit should be made to reflect this.198.189.184.243 (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, do not put long quotes here from the article. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. And this publication is a) an opinion piece and not a scientific article and b) more importantly, a primary source, so we cannot put a lot of WP:WEIGHT on it. thanks Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that an update has been made. It is appropriate in my opinion.198.189.184.243 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

He was criticized for not releasing the data. The content "He responded to some of the criticisms" includes that. I do not agree that the content should be any longer than that, as there a million "for examples" that could be pulled out of the article, and pulling any one out becomes cherry-picking. Do you see what I mean, User:Jinkinson? Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Tryptofish... Trypto, I think that the Nov 2012 publication should be given little WP:WEIGHT and putting it in its own section gives it quite a bit, and is practically begging editors to come add more content based on that piece. See what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

See how fast I respond? Yes, that's a good point. At the same time, I still think that what Seralini said should come first in the section, not last. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

And earlier section headers suffered from logorhea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedyfish, you are indeed. Yes I agree that the whole article could use tightening.Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On a related point, I don't mind deleting the sentence that was presented as an example, because that sentence didn't really say very much. However, I think that we need some sort of detail, beyond just saying that he presented a response to the criticisms. We have to give some sort of indication of what the response was. I'm not sure what it should be, but there ought to be one more sentence about the specifics. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes a well crafted sentence, preferably a quote, is fine, but not much more until we can examine other sources. Suggestions'? --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

I see the point; just made a change clarifying that the response was a defense.Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's an improvement, but it still strikes me as too sketchy. I wish I could suggest something specific, but I'm coming up blank for now, sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You still think it is sketchy? I think we are limited in what we can say, and I think it is currently accurate, neutral, and limited until we can find neutral reliable sources discussing it in the literature. I think you all did a good job. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC))

notability of other sources

gmoseralini.org is notable. It is cited in 6 articles in google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gmoseralini.org&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

and 2 articles in google news (inclusive of the website itself, but also another news source): https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=gmoseralini.org&oq=gmoseralini.org&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.3922.6769.0.6969.15.3.0.12.12.0.45.129.3.3.0...0.0...1ac.1.KQJuCcHzNAI

it contains letters of support from many other scientists (http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/supportletters-seralini-1.pdf, http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/supportletters-seralini-2.pdf), as well as other relevant material, provided above.

testbiotech.de is notable. It is cited in 23 articles in google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gmoseralini.org&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

corporateeurope.org is very notable. It is cited in 435 articles in google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=corporateeurope.org&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

Because of this. I will propose other edits incorporating those sources. For now I will give the following suggested addition:

We know that the Corporate Europe Observatory, the most notable of these other sources, when writing about the EFSA response to Seralini, concluded, "EFSA failed to properly and transparently appoint a panel of scientists beyond any suspicion of conflict of interests; and it failed to appreciate that meeting with Europe’s largest biotech industry lobby group to discuss GMO risk assessment guidelines in the very middle of a EU review undermines its credibility.": http://corporateeurope.org/news/how-efsa-dealt-french-gm-study-which-lessons

The header of that article states that: "it has been difficult to sort legitimate criticism of the study from industry spin."

My suggestion for an addition to the wikipedia article is thus as follows. This uses a pseudo-wikipedia code having the reference as a link in the parentheses:

The Corporate Europe Observatory argued that the EFSA group evaluating the Seralini paper was ridden with conflicts of interest, and that as a result, it is difficult to sort legitimate criticism of the study from industry spin.(http://corporateeurope.org/news/how-efsa-dealt-french-gm-study-which-lessons)198.189.184.243 (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, gmoseralini fails WP:RS - saying it is "notable" misses the point of the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. With respect to your discussion of "conflicts", I have said this gently before but I will say it plainly now. The notion that any scientist with any connection to industry is hopelessly conflicted does not fly on Wikipedia -- it is not mainstream scientific discourse, but is rather WP:FRINGE and does not belong in Wikipedia. Maybe one day the scientific community will reject corporate science and scientists but that is not true today. Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - it deals with the consensus as it stands today. No way does that content come into Wikipedia! Finally, the sentence you want to add fails WP:NPOV. Think about the mirror statement. "Forbes Magazine noted that Seralini "has made a specialty of methodologically flawed, irrelevant, uninterpretable — but over-interpreted — experiments intended to demonstrate harm from genetically engineered plants and the herbicide glyphosate in various highly contrived scenarios", and that as a result, it is difficult for the public to sort legitimate scientific criticism of GMOs from anti-GMO spin. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/)" That is the equivalent statement from the opposite side. Neither are OK in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Just want to add, 198.189.184.243, that I believe you are wanting to do good and help the world. But the kind of content you want to add is not acceptable in Wikipedia, which is mainstream. The day that Science and Nature stop accepting papers from corporate scientists you might have a leg to stand on, but not today.Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Struck my comments. The article already says "The German research group Testbiotech, which opposes GMOs and which believes that regulators have been captured by the biotech industry, posted a report critical of the EFSA's reaction to the study as not applying the same standards to studies submitted by industry as it did to Seralini's study.[63][64]"" So the concern you wanted to raise, has already been raised. I am not in a mood to fight a battle to remove content already in the article, and the framing there ("which believes that regulators have been captured by the biotech industry") makes it clear that testbiotech is outside the scientific consensus.Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

198.189.184.243, NEVER interfere with another user's comments on Talk. NEVER. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your points are noted, and I appreciate your comment. I still think that the Corporate Europe Observatory point about "EFSA ... meeting with Europe’s largest biotech industry lobby group to discuss GMO risk assessment guidelines in the very middle of a EU review" is worth discussing, and that there might be a stronger case for COI when we consider that. Thus the addition could be modified to state - The Corporate Europe Observatory has raised concern over the fact that some EFSA staff involved in the review of Séralini's study were invited in a luxury hotel in Brussels to discuss GMO risk assessments at a conference organised by Europabio, a biotech industry lobby group, in the middle of their review of Seralini's work.(http://corporateeurope.org/news/how-efsa-dealt-french-gm-study-which-lessons)198.189.184.243 (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not intend to interfere with your comments. If I did, it was accidental. Apologies for any unintended bad feelings.198.189.184.243 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. About your text above, I do understand very well that you think is important that EFSA met with Europabio, but creating conspiracy theories out of that is not how Wikipedia works. Now if the EFSA panel members were convicted of taking bribes from EuropaBio to make a favorable report, and this was reported in a reliable source, that would of course be meaningful. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I believe that the Corporate Europe Observatory's status per google scholar makes it at least as notable as testbiotech (and I don't see anything suggesting it is unreliable). I believe it at least has the same status at the testbiotech item already in the article, and therefore I believe (given that it doesn't explicitly speculate about bribes - and by the way, I am not proposing removal of EFSA commentary from the article because of the arguments these groups ) that right after the testbiotech item should be added, from a group more notable - per google scholar - than test biotech, the sentence The Corporate Europe Observatory has also argued that the EFSA staff evaluating the Seralini study, and the evaluation of the study itself when compared to its earlier evaluation of Monsanto's work, had redflags suggesting bias.(http://corporateeurope.org/news/how-efsa-dealt-french-gm-study-which-lessons)

This covers the full breadth of their critique, which is not limited to those particular items.198.189.184.243 (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Google scholar does not give cred. Do an evolution search some time. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

However, google scholar does list many sources from reliable journals that cite that source, making it worthy of inclusion.198.189.184.243 (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There are several big groups that embrace these fringe theories of regulatory corruption with respect to GMOs. Where does it stop? You like corporateobservatory, someone else likes gmfreecyru, somebody else likes greenpeace... not to mention all the little ones. btw google scholar is not a measure of anything scholarly. there is nothing scholarly about corporateobservatory, for example. Again, wikipedia is not about "balanced" - we don't present every view on every topic and give them all equal weight (see WP:WEIGHT). In the mainstream world, there is nothing bad about industry ties, per se. The puritanism of testbiotech and corporateobservatory is radical. Additionally, this (like testbiotech) is a self published article - see WP:SPS. Not reliable. But anyway, when I do a google scholar search on it, I get zero results. Here is the search: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22How+EFSA+dealt+with+French+GM+study%3A+what+lessons%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33 I am now curious - what is the search you are doing, 198.189.184.243?Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Just list the sources, then. It doesn't matter what search engine you use, so no need to bring that up. You have something to offer, but we may not be listening so well because we cannot see the offering in the midst of all these outside issues. Google scholar does not matter, sources are not reliable simply because they are in a scholar search, so we don't need any information or discusiion about google scholar. So, where, RS, is this discussed? --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

I did a general search of "corporateeurope.org", and found articles citing corporateeurope.org sources published in reliable journals: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=corporateeurope.org&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5198.189.184.243 (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but, so what? --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

This is the "so what". The issue is not about "corporate science". It is about the purported independence of regulators: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/independence.htm - vs. the actual reality. The EFSA page I just linked to states "involvement in industry-funded research does not necessarily constitute a conflict of interest provided that the research does not relate directly to the topic being considered by the Panel or Working Group", but in many cases, (e.g. - with GMOs, as has been shown), this involvement is in areas that directly pertain to the topics being considered by the regulators

Furthermore, as I noted before, the following letter notes a problem particularly with regards to Kuiper: http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/PR_Ombudsman_Complaint_Kuiper.pdf that links to a complaint: http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/Testbiotech%20complaint%20EU%20Ombudsman_Kuiper_1.pdf, which has an interesting paragraph (p. 3) - "While in October 2010 his DOI [Declaration of Interest] stated he would have affiliations with ILSI from 2000 "till now" (attached), his DOI in March [2011] stated affiliations with ILSI till 2005 (attached)."

In courts there is a principle called witness impeachment that certainly applies to these regulators when we consider the discrepancy between purported independence, and the actual fact, and furthermore, one leading regulator changing the story so as to appear more independent.

So that is the problem as it pertains to this article.

On a related note, there is the problem exposed by Walter Burien (http://www.cafr1.com/) and a proponent of his work in the film "the Great Pension Fund Hoax" (http://www.gnosticmedia.com/clint-richardson-interviews-jan-irvin-for-tme-radio/) - bringing attention to the elephant in the room of hidden in plain sight government ownership of major portions of multinationals, showing stores of wealth that reveal a discrepancy between alleged wealth and real wealth of government, and that government and industry are a sort of fusion. This is well documented by Burien and his proponent who made the video, is independently verifiable, and has implications going beyond most "conspiracy theories" (that word was mentioned here when referring to regulators) out there - it reveals a reality worse than them and a solution going far beyond temporary solutions to conspiracies. It is fully verifiable, and should be the major focus of debate. That is an issue going beyond the problem I outlined, but it is far more relevant.198.189.184.243 (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Time to take your soapbox elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia. Bye. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC))

My final point is that for the reasons I have given, which are valid, my suggested edit The Corporate Europe Observatory has also argued that the EFSA staff evaluating the Seralini study, and the evaluation of the study itself when compared to its earlier evaluation of Monsanto's work, had redflags suggesting bias.(http://corporateeurope.org/news/how-efsa-dealt-french-gm-study-which-lessons)

deserves inclusion after the testbiotech item.

The other items are relevant as they give insight into the bigger story, going beyond mere conflict of interest.198.189.184.243 (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

afasbad and i had an edit conflict - what I wrote was "Please, stop using this Talk page as a soapbox. Thanks." Please limit discussion here, to discussion of content about the "Seralini affair" article. I will add, again, that the "anybody with a connection to industry is tainted and cannot be trusted" concept that corporate observatory and testbiotech work in, is not mainstream and cannot be given a lot of weight in the article. You seemed to understand that above, but now are back with the same content and same source. But it is as non-mainstream today as it was last week. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And I want to add, that you actually brought a source called gnosticmedia to try to make an argument that something is mainstream....where I can buy books called "Astrotheology & Shamanism"? 198.189.184.243, everybody is free to think and enjoy what they like and give authority to whomever they like, but editors on Wikipedia are not. Please please read WP:RS and let's talk about sources that comply. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue, again, is not connection to industry, but claims of independence vs. the actual reality, implying lying on the part of EFSA staff.

Regarding Gnostic media - the reason for linking to that is because that is where a person who publicizes the fact I highlighted made an interview with the owner of the site, and it is where some of the relevant information in the attached video - "The Great Pension Fund Hoax". The original video the proponent made was "The Corporation nation": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkfMuvVuETQ - all the information in it is independently verifiable, though saying that it is the main source is a strawman, since the main source comes from here: http://www.cafr1.com/ - I was not advocating its use in the encyclopedia, I was merely highlighting it as an introduction to the broader implications of all of this.

There is however no reason why the argument that EFSA protocol supports Seralini, and thus, by implication, the EFSA is being selectively biased, that appears on Seralini's site, could not be used. A blog post of PZ Myers is liberally used in an attempt to undermine Luc Montagnier on montagnier's page. Surely, given that precedent, the originally cited link on Seralini's site could be used.71.202.210.61 (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Retraction

Word on the streets is that one way or another, the paper is about to be retracted. See "Retraction Watch" http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/ --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Accoding to the news article here that has already happened: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/krebskranke-ratten-fachzeitschrift-zieht-genmais-studie-zurueck-a-936217.html

--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered mentioning that the retraction is singular in the sense that the reasons for retraction don't fit with Elseviers own guidelines on article retraction? From the Elsiver site the mention retraction for: "Infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like. Occasionally a retraction will be used to correct errors in submission or publication." (http://www.elsevier.com/editors/policies/article-withdrawal). Nik 128.250.54.241 (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not - what you wrote above is what we call "original research" which is not allowed in Wikipedia - please see WP:ORJytdog (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

mention of our article in NY Times

here... Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That's quite nice (even though he implies incorrectly that the page only came into existence after the retraction)! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for the link. BlackHades (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

New content objecting to retraction

Today the following was added by User:Vindheim in this dif with no edit note :

"There has, however, also been a strong reaction from within the scientific community claiming the reasons cited by Elsevier are not sufficient to warrant a retraction, and could equally well apply to large number of other studies, including ones the GM-industry relies upon(ref)http://www.enveurope.com/content/25/1/33(/ref). Several prominent genetic scientists have signed a statement demanding that the study be reinstated. (ref)http://endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/Statement(/ref)" (ref markup changed so we can see sources)

I reverted in steps and added new content as follows:

In this dif I removed the bloggy site http://endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/Statement as a source, and the content that it was used to support, with edit note "remove another popup claire robinson website as source - not reliable"

In this dif (which includes fixing a typo). I first removed the other source provided and the content based on it, and provided new content with new sources, with edit note "cited source for reaction was submitted and accepted before retraction and doesn't mention the retraction. not a source for reaction. revised with source about reaction" (the cited source was submitted in August and accepted for publication in mid-November before the retraction, and as noted, doesn't mention the retraction. Using it as part of reaction is WP:OR

The text as it stood now read:

"Seralini and his supporters strongly objected to the retraction.(ref name=Casassus)Barbara Casassus for Nature News. November 28, 2013 Study linking GM maize to rat tumours is retracted: Publisher withdraws paper over authors' objections, citing weak evidence(/ref)(ref)Michael Hiltzik for the Los Angeles Times. November 29, 2013 Notorious anti-GMO study is retracted -- creating more controversy(/ref)" (ref markup changed so we can see sources)

User:Vindheim then reverted my changes in this dif, with edit note "undid weaselling", not dealing with the objections to the sources raised.

I then re-reverted in this dif, with edit note "as per WP:BRD please do not edit war. If you are Bold and add content, and are Reverted, Discuss! Thanks, I have opened a thread" and opened this thread.

So User:Vindheim please stop edit warring and talk! thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not discussing. I thought this was a simple update, presenting two valid sources.

1) The peer-reviewed article stating that the arguments used to defend the retraction, if universally applied, would necessitate retraction of numerous other articles. Jytdog removes this and inserts an opposing source, thereby removing an important and relevant argument.

2) A number of scientists, including several geneticists, have signed a statement demanding the retraction of Seralinis article to be undone. Jytdog removes this, claiming the website is not serious. Whatever the website, the signatures include genetic scientists such as Terje Traavik and Thomas Bøhn. Removing this information from the the article reduces the objectivity and relevance of this article and of Wikipedia.--Vindheim (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. As noted above, your source 1) does not mention the retraction; it was submitted for publication in August and accepted in mid-November and the retraction happened a week later -- your use of it here violates WP:OR. Please slow down and actually engage with what I am saying. The second source is not reliable - Claire Robinson is an anti-GMO activist and has many "popup" websites reacting to various controversies along the way. This is WP:SPS. I did not insert "an opposing source" and I don't even know what that means -- I used two very reliable sources: Nature News (this is a re-use as it was already cited) and the LA Times - both explicitly discuss the reaction. What is your problem with those two sources? Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, so source 1) does not mention the retraction; it does however mention the objections to Seralinis article. and even if the website in 2) is administrated by someone you distrust, the statement it contains is signed by accredited scientists. I do not object to your sources, I do object to your removal of mine. --Vindheim (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping your objections to the sources I used, and thanks for continuing to talk! However, you are still not dealing with the policy issues here. You cannot use 1) for the content you propose in this section, as this use violates WP:OR (specifically, WP:SYN) and 2) is not reliable as it is a WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a hard time following your logic here, Jytdog . Are you really claiming that referring to a peer-reviewed article equals Original Research ? If it were my own article, I would agree with you, but surely Wikipedia can refer to new scientific findings. And the claim that a statement signed by prominent scientists within the given field (genetic manipulation) is invalid, because it sits on a webpage administered by someone you distrust, is absurd. Surely the claims in the statement rest on the authority of the signees, not on that of the web-administrator.--Vindheim (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's slow down even more and do one at a time. I don't mean to be insulting, but have you read [{WP:SYN]]? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I have; and the way you use this guideline, it would be inappropriate to quote the IPCC reports, since they synthesize published work in the field of climate change. This is obvously not the intention of the guideline. --Vindheim (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for patience. I am sorry, but you are misunderstanding me. We don't synthesize ourselves - we do rely on authoritative publications, like those by IPCC, to synthesize and present the consensus. In the text you proposed for this section, you synthesized the argument that a) here is a peer reviewed paper that shows that the Seralini conclusions were solid, and b) therefore the publication should not have been retracted. If the peer reviewed paper said "the seralini publication should not have been retracted" you could cite it in this section, about reaction to the retraction. But it doesn't say that, so you cannot use it here. It could perhaps be used elsewhere in the article, about reactions to the Seralini publication itself and the validity of its conclusions, but not here, in the section about reactions to the retraction. Do you see what I mean now? Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. I get your point, and I shall consider it. --Vindheim (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

So, how about this version: There has also been support for Seralini within the scientific community. One study claims the objections presented against the Seralini paper could equally well apply to large number of other studies, including ones the GM-industry relies upon . In january 2014 several prominent genetic scientists signed a statement demanding that the Seralini study be reinstated. --Vindheim (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The article belongs in the Responses section, not here - putting it here is still WP:SYN. I went ahead and added content on that, and on the online petition. I removed "prominent" as is that your judgement - and many many more prominent scientists did not sign it than signed it, right? I contextualized both bits of new content so everything is knit together. Hopefully you will find the new content acceptable.Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your help; this has been most instructive. --Vindheim (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)