Talk:Genetically modified brinjal

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Cons and Pros

Removed the following from the article: AIRcorn (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several studies on Bt crops in particular and GM crops in general show that there are many potential health hazards in foods bio-engineered in this manner.[1]'

Institue of Science in Society (ISIS) is not a reliable source for this information

GM-fed animals in various studies have shown that there are problems with growth, organ development and damage, immune responsiveness and so on. With Bt crops, a recent study from Madhya Pradesh in India shows adverse human health impacts in farm and factory workers with allergies caused by Bt cotton. Itching skin, eruptions on the body, swollen faces etc., were also reported, correlated with levels of exposure to Bt cotton.^{[citation needed]} A study from Phillippines shows that people living next to Bt corn crop fields had developed many mysterious symptoms, especially during pollination time.^{[citation needed]}'

None of these studies are cited. It will be hard to get a reliable cite for the Indian factory workers and Philippine corn farmers as this evidence is anecdotal.

It has also been shown from studies elsewhere that genes inserted into GM food survive digestive processes and are transferred into the human body^{[citation needed]}. They are known to have transferred themselves into intestinal bacteria too^{[citation needed]}.

The GM food surviving the digestive tract I assume refers to a this if you read the study you will realise it does not say support the article text (quite the opposite in fact)

Bt toxin had caused powerful immune responses and abnormal cell growth in mice. It has also been shown that all the Cry proteins in Bt crops have amino acid sequence similar to known allergens and are hence potential allergens.[2]

ISIS is not a reliable source for this information

Genetically modified brinjals have been claimed to be pest-resistant and safe for consumption. In a country desperately trying to provide food and water to an exploding population, introduction of Bt brinjal could be an important factor in reducing^{[citation needed]} both the cost and availability of brinjals, which is a commonly used vegetable even though there is no dearth of this vegetable in Indian market.[3]

Can not find where in the source it says the above. It appears to be quite strongly against the Bt Brinjal.

Please clarify why ISIS is not a reliable source. It's idiotic to just say that and any remove any evidence the opposing faction is providing, you're being ridiculously, partisan, the articles provided have citations too. (The ISS issue is with the y'know homeopathy, not the biology studies), have you gone over them all? I don't think you have. Replace the links with appropriate ones from the citation lists on the removed article, or I will have try to get those back in. As for now, that seems to be a pretty bloody partisan edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.59.32 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS is an interest group with a strong anti GM focus. They are not reliable when it comes to explaining the health effects of GM crops. They can only be used to say what ISIS's opinion on the Bt Brinjal is. Also the linked article makes no mention of immune responses in mice and allergic properties of Cry toxins. This 2009 review summarizing the health studies about GM crops is a much better source, although there may be more recent ones available. As to the articles citations one points back to ISIS the other to another anti GM group and the final two to an Indian news site. None of these are reliable to make statements about the health effects of the Bt Brinjal. I am not sure what you are getting at with homeopathy or how it is relevant to the Brinjal. The ISIS article uses arguments from Professor Seralini and he should get a mention here. This is a copy of a report into the Bt Brinjal and it summarizes Seralini's concerns (along with a few others) from page 66 onwards and replies to them. A review detailing the concerns published in a peer reviewed journal would be ideal. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS has been in the news for its homeopathy stances in the past. The two ISIS articles referenced by each individual ISIS article originally on the page contain a few non-ISIS links, and I believe that they should be investigated. As of now, the article does not contain a summary of the Indian Bt controversy even though there are citation links referencing it. Along with cutting out the citations, you've deleted the protestors' viewpoint and concerns entirely. I am pretty sure they deserve to be included, it's what really makes Bt newsworthy.

Do you intend to add the latest/better sources soon or is cutting out the claims of the anti-bt lobby enough?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.44.141 (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article does need a summary of the Indian Bt controversy. It is on a list of things I will do but Wikipedia is not my highest priority at the moment. Feel free to edit it yourself in the meantime. If the non-ISIS links are from a more reliable source (ideally journals or mainstream news paper articles) then they can definitely be used. The important thing is to make sure that if it is someones opinion then that is made clear in the article. e.g Greenpeace claims or According to Professor Seralini. If you stick to these three policies verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view you shouldn't have too many problems. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re write

Added some more information about the attempted commercialization and controversy surrounding the Bt Brinjal AIRcorn (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivars / Varietals

There is a lot of good information on the inserted gene, but almost no discussion about what cultivars / varietlas had been engineered and field tested, and which of these BT Brinjal Varietals Mahyco received approval for in India. This seems to be an essential part of the story and I am trying to seek out good sources, but I am limited to the English language press. Hindi / Karnataka resources would probably shine much more light on this topic. Infoeco (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monsanto

Monsanto has not deveoped GM brinjal. However, it owns 26%of Indian seed company Mahyco that developed it.Kumarrao (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brinjal, in my wiki? It's more likely than you think...

I understand from the beginning of the article that eggplant is called brinjal in India. That's fine. This is the English wiki, though, and we call it eggplant in the US (aubergine in the UK?). Maybe there's some convention for naming here that I've never seen before, but this feels like the equivalent of an article constantly talking about pineapples referring to them as "ananas" because whatever the subject was happened to be taking place in France or Germany... I didn't see any capitalization / trademarks that would indicate that Bt brinjal is a proper term for this (please correct me if I'm wrong and this is necessary somehow), so why is a completely unused name for the main topic used throughout the article?

I'm more than willing to change this if people agree on it, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything first.50.129.87.99 (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BT Brinjal only really existed in India (although it never actually made it there) so the most common name for this variety was brinjal, even in English publications. AIRcorn (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to revisit this. "BT eggplant" is now approved for use in the Philippines under the American/Australian name. In the past Aircorn's argument was correct but I think this is going to be in the press more and more now under its English names. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bt brinjal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140220065556/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j8XJ6iUXuJDzCEBqOGaOgE44PdMg?docId=CNG.bbc3cf4e096e4108d90e426d850d8acf.b91 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j8XJ6iUXuJDzCEBqOGaOgE44PdMg?docId=CNG.bbc3cf4e096e4108d90e426d850d8acf.b91

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bt brinjal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]