Talk:Genetically modified organism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Genetically modified tomatoes are a separate page[edit]

I recently added this to the page for vaccine. More complex plants such as tobacco, potato, tomato and banana, can have genes inserted that cause them to produce vaccines usable for humans. [1] There is a seperate page for genetically modified tomatoes; should there be one for other fruits and vegetables?

  1. ^ Sala, F.; Manuela Rigano, M.; Barbante, A.; Basso, B.; Walmsley, AM; Castiglione, S (January 2003). "Vaccine antigen production in transgenic plants: strategies, gene constructs and perspectives". Vaccine. 21 (7-8): 803–8. PMID 23888738. 

RfC of interest[edit]

Editors here might find this RfC of interest, Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#RfC_Is_including_a_quotation_which_describes_GM_food_as_.27poison.27_acceptable.

non-transgenic plant mods[edit]

I added this bit to History of genetic engineering:

In 2015 CRISPR and TALENs was used to modify plant genomes. Chinese labs used it to create a fungus-resistant wheat and boost rice yields, while a U.K. group used it to tweak a barley gene that could help produce drought-resistant varieties. When used to precisely remove material from DNA without adding genes from other species, the result is not subject the lengthy and expensive regulatory process associated with GMOs. While CRISPR may use foreign DNA to aid the editing process, the second generation of edited plants contain none of that DNA. Researchers celebrated the acceleration because it may allow them to "keep up" with rapidly evolving pathogens. The U.S. Department of Agriculture stated that some examples of gene-edited corn, potatoes and soybeans are not subject to existing regulations. Other review bodies have yet to make statements.[1]
  1. ^ Talbot, David (2016-03). "10 Breakthrough Technologies 2016: Precise Gene Editing in Plants". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2016-03-08.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

I was thinking it would also fit in the Plant section of this piece. Comments? Lfstevens (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to downloaded some papers about CRISPR with the intention of adding information to the history article, so thanks for doing that. See no reason not to add it to the plant section or even a trimmed version in history. There is also the Genetic engineering techniques article where the details can be expanded on. AIRcorn (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I would reword the mention of Chinese labs boosting rice yields; until their modification makes it past trials and into widespread use, the GM rice has not yet boosted yields.Dialectric (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Either we talk about the research projects or we don't. I see no reason to talk about fungus but not yield. This does not say that these projects are available. Lfstevens (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Then let's not talk about them. There is no reason that these projects are more notable than dozens of other GM organisms in development. The fact that they use CRISPR is novel, but unless there are entire articles about these specific Chinese projects, I don't see why they should get undue weight relative to other not-yet-commercialized-or-approved GMOs.Dialectric (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the specifics are unnecessary. Note that the source says "in efforts to boost yields" not that they have actually achieved anything. It also says that they "could avoid the lengthy and expensive regulatory process associated with GMOs" and "The big question is whether CRISPR crops will be governed by the same regulations as GMOs." - rather different to what the text states. This open access review would be a much better source (maybe alongside the current one). SmartSE (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion of Rules for RfC on GMO food safety[edit]

A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety language based on the five proposals at GM crops here. This RfC will affect the current language in paragraph 2 of the Controversy section of this article. The WordsmithTalk to me and Laser brain (talk) have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms[edit]

This is a notice that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms is open for public comment. AIRcorn (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Genetically modified organism. 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}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there any consensus that GMO foods should undergo any unique scrutiny?[edit]

A lot of these seem to be begging the question. Aren't things like food handling and preparation much greater threats that need to be monitored that cause measurable harm measured in deaths and numbers of illnesses?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please explain your question. I assume you are not asking editors whether THEY think GMOs should be tested. We can only ask what the RS says about the topic, right? Have you reviewed the RS? The answer is easy to find there, e.g. the RS mentioned here. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Third paragraph in Genetically modified organism#Controversy[edit]

Per the recently closed GMO RfC, I have replaced the second paragraph of this article with the RfC's Proposal 1, which was successful and implemented per discretionary sanction. However, since the paragraph after, saying that a few organizations dispute the scientific results and some other information contradicting the scientific consensus, may not be neutral, I would like some input on what to do with the third paragraph. Esquivalience (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

They are WP:FRINGE views conflicting with the scientific consensus, but notable ones. I'd say leave it for now for the purposes of the RfC close, and the lede material can be worked out further on the controversies page if need be. I think some changes could be made to make it clearer they are fringe views, but I'd just say there's no WP:DEADLINE right now since the consensus language is locked in now at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Disagree. Paragraph 3 is not "fringe". I have restored deleted material that was not subject to the RfC here. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

the term GMO is usually not used in basic genetic research[edit]

as a term GMO is not used in basic molecular biology research. for geneticists it is generally simply mutant (versus wild type). GMO is an industrial term. so these things need to be clarified. in many places throughout the text there are references to research usage. --ArazZeynili (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Genetically modified organism. 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}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)