Talk:Roundup Ready soybean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:GTS 40-3-2)
Jump to: navigation, search


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)



GTS 40-3-2Roundup Ready soybeanAIRcorn (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The WP:common name is Roundup Ready soybean. Google Scholar search for "GTS 40-3-2" (many of which use Roundup Ready or Glyphosate tolerant in the title) and search for "Roundup ready soybean". GTS 40-3-2 is the name of the transgenic event that created the soybean and would not be used much outside the laboratory. I also feel that the new name satisfies the principle naming criteria: recognizabiltiy and naturalness by having soybean in the title; precision by covering other events that insert the EPSPS gene into soybean under this heading; and consistancy with Golden Rice, Flavr Savr tomato, Amflora etc. Currently the only other events that have articles are MON810 and MON863 and these individual events are notable as they are the subject of very public safety tests. An alternative name could be Glyphosate tolerant soybean or Herbicide resistant soybean which are also commonly found. AIRcorn (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support RR soybeans were transformed by DNA biolistics NOT cauliflower mosaic virus(CMV).

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

note above about method of transformation[edit]

prior editor goofed and placed note asking for correction of transformation inside the closed survey discussion. i will not move another editor's additions, but wanted to respond and say thanks - the correction has been made.Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

objection[edit]

Scientific Consensus - There is no scientific consensus that GMOs as a whole are safe. Monsanto aggressively pursues not having their products tested without being able to squelch the results. They have directly contributed funding to the AAAS which taints the source. The WHO says ongoing testing is needed and that "GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods" and the AMA favors pretesting of products which the FDA does not currently require. Members of the AAAS and other experts have come forward to voice their disagreement. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/ http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AMA/33362 http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/yes-labels-on-gm-foods http://www.aaas.org/page/matching-gifts http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.227.32 (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you are passionate about this. First, the statement is carefully written so that it does not cover all possible GMOs - instead it is narrowly targeted - it says "that food on the market derived from GM crops" -- it does not say "all GMOs". This exactly complies with the WHO statement. Additionally, a ton of sources are presented, and this statement and these sources have been upheld by the community in a broad discussion. You can read that here. Jytdog (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this issue really has been carefully and extensively discussed before. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)