![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I removed the bias in this section. I understand that this section should be brief and not give specifics because there is a whole article for controversies but when users come to this article for the first time they are given the impression that the antagonists for GM foods are conspiracy theorists and that is definitely not the case. There are two sides to this controversy and I think it’s very important the article lets the readers know that and briefly touches on that. Why is it okay to say there is no evidence that supports anything bad coming from GMO's but it's not okay to supply that evidence. TiaMarie08 ( talk) 19:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
My concern is, this a huge controversial topic right now for lots of people all over the world. This article may be their “one stop shop” to get information on the topic and I feel like there are significant parts of this article that are biased. The article does talk about both sides of the argument but it always blows off all evidence that says genetically modified foods are bad and only touches on the evidence stating genetically modified foods are good. There is substantial evidence on both sides of the topic so I don’t understand why you feel only one side is important to include.
TiaMarie08 (
talk)
19:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Today
User:TiaMarie08 added the following to the Controversies section in
this dif, which I reverted: "Numerous sources have also said that the FDA gives blanket approval to new genetically modified foods being introduced simply because they don’t detect changes in the composition of the food. (ref)Bouffard, Kevin. “Nature Vs. GMO: Sides Face Off Over Genetically Modified Food.” McClatchy – Tribune Business News Sept 03 2013. Proquest. Web. 17 Sept. 2013.(/ref)(ref) Smith, Jeffrey M. "Genetically Modified Crops Are Harmful." Genetic Engineering. Ed. Sylvia Engdahl. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Contemporary Issues Companion. Rpt. from "Genetically Engineered Foods May Pose National Health Risk." www.seedsofdeception.com. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 11 Oct. 2013.(/ref)"
Issues with this: 1) there is no reliable source to rely on, for a statement that the "FDA gives blanket approval" because this is not true. It comes close to describing substantial equivalence but that is a starting point for regulators, not an endpoint. 2) The statement itself is not encyclopedic. There are actual facts here, about how the FDA regulates - there is a whole article on Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms that describes how the FDA, EPA, USDA regulate GM crops and food and how they are regulated elsewhere; it can be described objectively and we don't conspiracy-theory sounding reliance on "numerous sources". 3) Jeffery Smith is unfortunately not a reliable source for statements of fact about anything controversial about GMOs.
Additionally, Regulation itself is covered in the regulation article; controversies over regulation are discussed in the humongous article on the controversies around GM food (see Genetically modified food controversies). That regulation is covered there, is mentioned in the existing text that mentions regulations several times. Tiamarie, if we were to flesh out everything in the short section on Controversies here, we would just replicate the huge other article. This is why content gets split - articles become too long otherwise. I hope that makes sense! Jytdog ( talk) 23:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC) (note - moved my comment up here to keep this thread together. Jytdog ( talk) 20:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC))
I agree with you that the evidence I presented about the “FDA giving blanket approval” is not as reliable as information posted here should be and definitely not encyclopedic. The problems I’m facing are1) the FDA, EPA, and USDA are who approve genetically modified food, so why would they ever admit to “blanket approving” these foods and 2) they are the government agencies deemed most credible to publish information about the topic so I will never be able to find sufficient evidence to trump that in the “general consensus’s” view. I feel as if this is a huge topic not because of the attention it has gotten by the media lately in the last 6 months or year. I feel it’s important because this topic impacts what most American’s consume every day. All the time new scientists are posting new studies about genetically modified foods causing cancer, intestinal problems, and all sorts of health benefits, regardless of what either of us or any Wikipedian’s thinks about the matter I think it’s important to provide either both sides or neither. The controversies section of this article says, “There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food” According to a recent CBS/ New York times poll 53% of American’s would not buy genetically modified food if it was labeled and according to a recent Mellman Group poll 89% want genetically modified food labeled.
[1]
[2] So I took that piece out because it’s biased when there are poll’s showing that just as many people want it labeled. The article also says, “There is no evidence to support the idea that the consumption of approved GM food has a detrimental effect on human health” In the Genetically Modified Food Controversies Article there are multiple different studies showing there is evidence supporting GM Food to be harmful. I’m just confused as to why both sides can’t be in this article because every time I add information you take it down. Since this is the case, why is there even a controversies section in this article if we aren’t able to give information about both sides of the controversy. I really want to contribute to this article in a positive way so I’m curious as to what I can do to help. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TiaMarie08 (
talk •
contribs)
19:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again! Jytdog ( talk) 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add that there has been a huge spike in food allergies in kids since 1997, which can easily be correlated since they started producing GMO foods in the markets in 1996. Seashell1 ( talk) 16:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)§
Someone has removed all sources and studies that oppose genetically modified food, and I feel it is heavily biased. I tried to edit more sources in, however it is now semi-protected after I added more facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmccoy1111 ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems you're heavily biased and involved in the biotech industry, Jytdog. There is bias in this article, "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.", while many of those studies, if not all, are funded by biotech corporations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmccoy1111 ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:B:14F:C0D3:211C:C8E7:AE56 ( talk)
I would like to add Senate Bill 802 would require food intended for human consumption that is entirely or partially genetically-engineered to bear the words “Produced with Genetic Engineering” on their packaging. The phrase must be printed in the same size and font as the ingredients on the product’s nutrition facts panel. Unpack aged raw agricultural commodities must be labeled on their retail shelf or bin. if approved will provide citation. Seashell1 ( talk) 01:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add currently only The USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency regulate GMOs. Companies such as Monsanto, the largest purveyor of genetically engineered seeds, must get approval before planting or selling the products commercially. Also that GMO label doesn't apply to plants bred through natural cross-pollination in a field or the hybrid breeding of two species of the same crop, methods used by farmers for thousands of years to grow, cull and propagate the hardiest, best varieties. GMO seeds are prohibited under the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act for certified organic growers or any certified organic product. [3] Seashell1 ( talk) 21:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)§
I wanted to add that there is currently 26 countries that ban GMO foods in their countries. [4] Seashell1 ( talk) 18:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)§
On November 5, 2013, Washington voted whether or not to label foods that contain GMOs. There were some controversies with this because if the law were to pass it would not include food in restaurants or milk/meat. Although the bill did not pass it was a huge step forward in the labeling GMO's movement.[citation needed] This comment was entered although it did not provide a source. I would like to add a source and additional information. Initiative Measure No. I-522 filed June 29, 2012 is AN ACT Relating to disclosure of foods produced through genetic engineering; adding a new chapter to Title 70 RCW; and prescribing penalties. On November 5, Bill I-522 did not pass on November 5th, with a final result of 51-49 labeling Genetically Engineered Foods. [5]§ Seashell1 ( talk) 02:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I would like to provide an update to inform users that there is currently 64 countries that require GMO foods to be labeled. [6] Seashell1 ( talk) 23:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)§
You're clearly closely watching this article every day to see changes, and editing out all changes that are against GMO food, it seems, which I find odd, Jytdog. Can you provide proof that you don't work for a big agricultural corporation? I just find it very odd that you're editing out all changes and you love the line "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.". If you removed that line, the article would be relatively unbiased, from either side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmccoy1111 ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Why did you remove the reference after safety issues??? It has been there for quite a while. Bmccoy1111 ( talk) 18:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Seashell1 has wanted to add the following to the article, in the Regulatory section, as per this dif and earlier ones:
"The USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency regulate GMOs. Companies such as Monsanto, the largest purveyor of genetically engineered seeds, must get approval before planting or selling the products commercially. Also that GMO label doesn't apply to plants bred through natural cross-pollination in a field or the hybrid breeding of two species of the same crop, methods used by farmers for thousands of years to grow, cull and propagate the hardiest, best varieties. GMO seeds are prohibited under the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act for certified organic growers or any certified organic product.(ref)"Defining GMO.” McClatchy Tribune Business News.(May 2011). Proquest.com.Web.19 Sept. 2013.(/ref)"
I have reverted, as I did in this dif with an explanation: "reverted re-addition content on regulation of GMOs in the US. as previously noted, this is US-centric. please discuss on Talk instead of edit-warring, thanks".
As I wrote there, the Regulatory section is taken from the lead of the main articles, Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms and Regulation of genetic engineering. Regulation is a GLOBAL issue - every country does it differently, and the edit that Seashell is making, is US-centric. Additionally -- the first is not accurate, since there are 3 US federal agencies involved, not just two. The second sentence is globally true and we could keep. The third sentence is irrelevant - this article is about GM crops, not normal crops. The 4th sentence is about organic crops, not GM crops. So we can keep the second sentence if you all like, but the rest should not come in. Other people have tried to add other countries (like Switzerland) in here, and once we start going there, we basically replicate the Regulation article in this article, and that is just silly. User:Seashell1 please discuss. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 19:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Bmccoy1111 has added this pic to the article, and originally wanted the caption to read " Corn genetically engineered to self-produce Glyphosphate, for self-resistance to pests" (see this dif). I removed the caption in this dif and my edit note made 2 points:
Later today Bmccoy1111 put a caption back in this dif. The new caption reads: "Corn that is resistant to Glyphosate, a commonly used insecticide". We have the same two issues - a misrepresentation and a description based on a lack of understanding. In this case the lack of understanding is that glyphosate is not an insecticide - it is an herbicide. The misrepresentation issue remains. I again deleted the caption except for the word "corn". We should not misrepresent the image, and if an image of GM corn is found, it should accurately describe the modification. Bmccoy1111 do you see the problems? Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 18:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll agree with you on that, I suppose,. However, there is no need to remove the sources after "safety issues". That is the whole reason I am mad at you for only keeping the sources that are on your side. I am not insulting you in any way, we can certainly agree to disagree. Bmccoy1111 ( talk) 19:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to restore the plum photo until we can find a better one. Bmccoy1111 ( talk) 20:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
In this dif, User:Bmccoy1111 deleted a big chunk of text from the body, with the edit note: "Removed "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.", because it is repetitive and already stated in the beginning of the article)". This deletion was later reverted by User:Thargor Orlando in this dif with edit note " Restoring current consensus version, see talk"
The reasons stated for the deletion by Bmccoy1111 are incorrect. As per The Manual of Style on the lead section - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section - the lead is supposed to be repetitive and the lead is only supposed to have content that is already in the body. You write the body first, and then you write the lead, summarizing the body. If something is not in the body, it should not be in the lead! Bmccoy1111 did not provide valid grounds for deleting this content from the body. User:Bmccoy1111 it is frustrating that you are making aggressive edits, and not talking, when you do not understand how Wikipedia works and you do not understand the subject matter very well. Please slow down, and talk about things. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 19:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll just leave this page alone until I understand Wikipedia more, as it is a very controversial subject at the time. Bmccoy1111 ( talk) 20:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't a date be specified in the claim that, "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food" and in the accompanying Request for Comments (RfC)? That RfC ran from July to September 2013. For example, shouldn't the statement read something more like "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market as of mid-2013 and derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food"? Or make it two sentences like, "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food; this does not include foods introduced since mid-2013"?
To what extent might that "broad scientific consensus" extend to GM foods introduced since the most recent scientific article reviewed during that period?
For example, does that consensus include GMO apples, currently under regulatory review in the US and Canada? DavidMCEddy ( talk) 19:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
today user:BrianWo added content on labelling in these difs]. I moved that content in part into the Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms article in this dif and in part (as there was duplication) into the Genetically modified food controversies article, in this dif. This reason for this is WP:SUMMARY. Both the Regulation and Controversies articles are very very long, and we have worked hard to edit these articles so they are well organized and synced, and cover all the relevant issues. There is constant temptation to add material to this article but such efforts often bring detail that doesn't rise to the Lead of the split articles and so shouldn't be here either. Hope this makes sense; happy to discuss. Jytdog ( talk) 11:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no mention whatsoever of wheat in the article. Wheat is modified to withstand herbicides, pesticides and drought. Seems to me that would increase our ingestion of poison in our diet, since wheat is in so many processed foods. Besides that, GMO wheat products spike blood sugar faster than eating pure sugar. 108.194.197.251 ( talk) 21:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Let me put it right up-front: I admit I am no expert on GMO food. But I am scientist and know how to dig scientific literature. Searching the literature for an hour or so, I do not find any broad scientific consensus that GMO is safe; rather, I found there is some controversy, and that some GMO foods are considered safe, while others are not. Moreover, some foods have not been extensively tested or need to be tested longer.
Please read, consider, and take a stance, on e.g., this review, in particular the 'Final remarks' therein if you're in a hurry: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412011000055
How can one state in this Wikipedia article that there is a broad scientific consensus? In the light of (even) one article (above), I must conclude: the statement quoted in the subject/headline is false. According to the article there is rather a 1:1 I'd like to ask the editor of the article to have a look at this. and consider that this wikipedia article is not neutrally written.
Let me quote from above review: "However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies (Domingo, 2007). The scientific community may finally be able to critically evaluate and discuss all that information, which was not possible until now. Scientists know quite well how different may be the information published in reputed international journals, which has been submitted to peer-review processes, from those general comments/reports not submitted to this selective procedure. "
I second this article is not neutrally written. 'Some' instead of 'broad' would be much more appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.229.58 ( talk) 07:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: requested discussion of my change from:
to:
The original text sounded to me like it was implying the FDA has a blanket policy that there is no difference between GMO and non-GMO foods, so it doesn't test them and doesn't require labelling. I did not do a very good job clarifying, so here's a second try. Maybe what we want to say is:
The parts of the referenced source I have in mind are:
Any thoughts? -- Beland ( talk) 21:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen such a hatnote on any other article. It is blatantly opposed to Wikipedia style conventions; essentially a "See also" list of associative links disguised as a hatnote. "Genetically modified food" is not an ambiguous title. There is no reason to present people with links to related content at this prominent position, which is specifically to guide readers who are likely to have arrived at the wrong article. WP:RELATED specifically discourages hatnotes merely linking to related content, and does not mention any exceptions. Therefore, I have removed the hatnote again. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 00:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (24 June 2014), Environmental Sciences Europe
‘Significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures’
The study examines the health effects on rats of eating Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and adjuvants) in drinking water. It found:
“the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments.
“Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted.
“These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic consequences.
“Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.”
The paper concludes: ”Taken together, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work reveal the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes.
“They also show that the conclusion of the Monsanto authors that the initial indications of organ toxicity found in their 90-day experiment were not ‘biologically meaningful’ is not justifiable.
“We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and complete pesticide formulations must be evaluated thoroughly in long-term studies to measure their potential toxic effects.”
IjonTichy ( talk) 18:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
For me GM foods are very harmful as it changes the genetic quality and can make it harmful to consume it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.37.130 ( talk) 15:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genetically modified food has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vandana-shiva/from-seeds-of-suicide-to_b_192419.html 203.192.255.248 ( talk) 19:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Please include details as listed on posts above, is wikipedia paid by these private comnpanies to hide the real danger of gmo seeds. Many times ion the article its mentioned that genetically modified crops are same as conventional, just read about the dangers in above link. It lead to suicide of 250,000 farmers in india and its not even mentioned once that how they completely destroy the farming economy, the land, the crops, etc.
If wikipedia is not a paid source of private corporates, prove it!!!
On this page (Genetically Modified Foods) in the section labeled Foods with protein or DNA remaining from GMOs, the following sentence appears:
"There are currently no transgenic potatoes marketed for human consumption.[21]"
This is no longer true, according to the third paragraph following, about the USDA approval and release to the market of the Simplot company's Innate potato.
This sentence needs to be deleted.
172.56.20.30 ( talk) 06:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)David Kinne
In the introduction, it would be appropriate to note that genetic modification simply refers to the editing of DNA sequence, and cannot be classified as entirely dangerous or not. It depends on the genes being altered. Much like changes in the human genome can be favorable (e.g. HIV resistance through Ccr5 polymorphism), unfavorable (e.g. CFTR mutation causing cystic fibrosis), or context-dependent (e.g. polymorphism for sickle cell anemia).
Also, what is required to be able to edit this page? I have a PhD from Harvard. Thanks. CellbioPhD ( talk) 05:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)cellbiophd
Maybe this article or the sources it links to can be used for something, here or in one of the subarticles. [5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI. The claim of "scientific consensus" on GMO safety is being discussed here and was briefly discussed here. David Tornheim ( talk) 05:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Took a run through this. Feedback encouraged. Comments:
Cheers! Lfstevens ( talk) 01:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I removed the bias in this section. I understand that this section should be brief and not give specifics because there is a whole article for controversies but when users come to this article for the first time they are given the impression that the antagonists for GM foods are conspiracy theorists and that is definitely not the case. There are two sides to this controversy and I think it’s very important the article lets the readers know that and briefly touches on that. Why is it okay to say there is no evidence that supports anything bad coming from GMO's but it's not okay to supply that evidence. TiaMarie08 ( talk) 19:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
My concern is, this a huge controversial topic right now for lots of people all over the world. This article may be their “one stop shop” to get information on the topic and I feel like there are significant parts of this article that are biased. The article does talk about both sides of the argument but it always blows off all evidence that says genetically modified foods are bad and only touches on the evidence stating genetically modified foods are good. There is substantial evidence on both sides of the topic so I don’t understand why you feel only one side is important to include.
TiaMarie08 (
talk)
19:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Today
User:TiaMarie08 added the following to the Controversies section in
this dif, which I reverted: "Numerous sources have also said that the FDA gives blanket approval to new genetically modified foods being introduced simply because they don’t detect changes in the composition of the food. (ref)Bouffard, Kevin. “Nature Vs. GMO: Sides Face Off Over Genetically Modified Food.” McClatchy – Tribune Business News Sept 03 2013. Proquest. Web. 17 Sept. 2013.(/ref)(ref) Smith, Jeffrey M. "Genetically Modified Crops Are Harmful." Genetic Engineering. Ed. Sylvia Engdahl. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Contemporary Issues Companion. Rpt. from "Genetically Engineered Foods May Pose National Health Risk." www.seedsofdeception.com. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 11 Oct. 2013.(/ref)"
Issues with this: 1) there is no reliable source to rely on, for a statement that the "FDA gives blanket approval" because this is not true. It comes close to describing substantial equivalence but that is a starting point for regulators, not an endpoint. 2) The statement itself is not encyclopedic. There are actual facts here, about how the FDA regulates - there is a whole article on Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms that describes how the FDA, EPA, USDA regulate GM crops and food and how they are regulated elsewhere; it can be described objectively and we don't conspiracy-theory sounding reliance on "numerous sources". 3) Jeffery Smith is unfortunately not a reliable source for statements of fact about anything controversial about GMOs.
Additionally, Regulation itself is covered in the regulation article; controversies over regulation are discussed in the humongous article on the controversies around GM food (see Genetically modified food controversies). That regulation is covered there, is mentioned in the existing text that mentions regulations several times. Tiamarie, if we were to flesh out everything in the short section on Controversies here, we would just replicate the huge other article. This is why content gets split - articles become too long otherwise. I hope that makes sense! Jytdog ( talk) 23:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC) (note - moved my comment up here to keep this thread together. Jytdog ( talk) 20:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC))
I agree with you that the evidence I presented about the “FDA giving blanket approval” is not as reliable as information posted here should be and definitely not encyclopedic. The problems I’m facing are1) the FDA, EPA, and USDA are who approve genetically modified food, so why would they ever admit to “blanket approving” these foods and 2) they are the government agencies deemed most credible to publish information about the topic so I will never be able to find sufficient evidence to trump that in the “general consensus’s” view. I feel as if this is a huge topic not because of the attention it has gotten by the media lately in the last 6 months or year. I feel it’s important because this topic impacts what most American’s consume every day. All the time new scientists are posting new studies about genetically modified foods causing cancer, intestinal problems, and all sorts of health benefits, regardless of what either of us or any Wikipedian’s thinks about the matter I think it’s important to provide either both sides or neither. The controversies section of this article says, “There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food” According to a recent CBS/ New York times poll 53% of American’s would not buy genetically modified food if it was labeled and according to a recent Mellman Group poll 89% want genetically modified food labeled.
[1]
[2] So I took that piece out because it’s biased when there are poll’s showing that just as many people want it labeled. The article also says, “There is no evidence to support the idea that the consumption of approved GM food has a detrimental effect on human health” In the Genetically Modified Food Controversies Article there are multiple different studies showing there is evidence supporting GM Food to be harmful. I’m just confused as to why both sides can’t be in this article because every time I add information you take it down. Since this is the case, why is there even a controversies section in this article if we aren’t able to give information about both sides of the controversy. I really want to contribute to this article in a positive way so I’m curious as to what I can do to help. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TiaMarie08 (
talk •
contribs)
19:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again! Jytdog ( talk) 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add that there has been a huge spike in food allergies in kids since 1997, which can easily be correlated since they started producing GMO foods in the markets in 1996. Seashell1 ( talk) 16:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)§
Someone has removed all sources and studies that oppose genetically modified food, and I feel it is heavily biased. I tried to edit more sources in, however it is now semi-protected after I added more facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmccoy1111 ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems you're heavily biased and involved in the biotech industry, Jytdog. There is bias in this article, "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.", while many of those studies, if not all, are funded by biotech corporations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmccoy1111 ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:B:14F:C0D3:211C:C8E7:AE56 ( talk)
I would like to add Senate Bill 802 would require food intended for human consumption that is entirely or partially genetically-engineered to bear the words “Produced with Genetic Engineering” on their packaging. The phrase must be printed in the same size and font as the ingredients on the product’s nutrition facts panel. Unpack aged raw agricultural commodities must be labeled on their retail shelf or bin. if approved will provide citation. Seashell1 ( talk) 01:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add currently only The USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency regulate GMOs. Companies such as Monsanto, the largest purveyor of genetically engineered seeds, must get approval before planting or selling the products commercially. Also that GMO label doesn't apply to plants bred through natural cross-pollination in a field or the hybrid breeding of two species of the same crop, methods used by farmers for thousands of years to grow, cull and propagate the hardiest, best varieties. GMO seeds are prohibited under the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act for certified organic growers or any certified organic product. [3] Seashell1 ( talk) 21:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)§
I wanted to add that there is currently 26 countries that ban GMO foods in their countries. [4] Seashell1 ( talk) 18:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)§
On November 5, 2013, Washington voted whether or not to label foods that contain GMOs. There were some controversies with this because if the law were to pass it would not include food in restaurants or milk/meat. Although the bill did not pass it was a huge step forward in the labeling GMO's movement.[citation needed] This comment was entered although it did not provide a source. I would like to add a source and additional information. Initiative Measure No. I-522 filed June 29, 2012 is AN ACT Relating to disclosure of foods produced through genetic engineering; adding a new chapter to Title 70 RCW; and prescribing penalties. On November 5, Bill I-522 did not pass on November 5th, with a final result of 51-49 labeling Genetically Engineered Foods. [5]§ Seashell1 ( talk) 02:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I would like to provide an update to inform users that there is currently 64 countries that require GMO foods to be labeled. [6] Seashell1 ( talk) 23:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)§
You're clearly closely watching this article every day to see changes, and editing out all changes that are against GMO food, it seems, which I find odd, Jytdog. Can you provide proof that you don't work for a big agricultural corporation? I just find it very odd that you're editing out all changes and you love the line "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.". If you removed that line, the article would be relatively unbiased, from either side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmccoy1111 ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Why did you remove the reference after safety issues??? It has been there for quite a while. Bmccoy1111 ( talk) 18:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Seashell1 has wanted to add the following to the article, in the Regulatory section, as per this dif and earlier ones:
"The USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency regulate GMOs. Companies such as Monsanto, the largest purveyor of genetically engineered seeds, must get approval before planting or selling the products commercially. Also that GMO label doesn't apply to plants bred through natural cross-pollination in a field or the hybrid breeding of two species of the same crop, methods used by farmers for thousands of years to grow, cull and propagate the hardiest, best varieties. GMO seeds are prohibited under the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act for certified organic growers or any certified organic product.(ref)"Defining GMO.” McClatchy Tribune Business News.(May 2011). Proquest.com.Web.19 Sept. 2013.(/ref)"
I have reverted, as I did in this dif with an explanation: "reverted re-addition content on regulation of GMOs in the US. as previously noted, this is US-centric. please discuss on Talk instead of edit-warring, thanks".
As I wrote there, the Regulatory section is taken from the lead of the main articles, Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms and Regulation of genetic engineering. Regulation is a GLOBAL issue - every country does it differently, and the edit that Seashell is making, is US-centric. Additionally -- the first is not accurate, since there are 3 US federal agencies involved, not just two. The second sentence is globally true and we could keep. The third sentence is irrelevant - this article is about GM crops, not normal crops. The 4th sentence is about organic crops, not GM crops. So we can keep the second sentence if you all like, but the rest should not come in. Other people have tried to add other countries (like Switzerland) in here, and once we start going there, we basically replicate the Regulation article in this article, and that is just silly. User:Seashell1 please discuss. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 19:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Bmccoy1111 has added this pic to the article, and originally wanted the caption to read " Corn genetically engineered to self-produce Glyphosphate, for self-resistance to pests" (see this dif). I removed the caption in this dif and my edit note made 2 points:
Later today Bmccoy1111 put a caption back in this dif. The new caption reads: "Corn that is resistant to Glyphosate, a commonly used insecticide". We have the same two issues - a misrepresentation and a description based on a lack of understanding. In this case the lack of understanding is that glyphosate is not an insecticide - it is an herbicide. The misrepresentation issue remains. I again deleted the caption except for the word "corn". We should not misrepresent the image, and if an image of GM corn is found, it should accurately describe the modification. Bmccoy1111 do you see the problems? Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 18:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll agree with you on that, I suppose,. However, there is no need to remove the sources after "safety issues". That is the whole reason I am mad at you for only keeping the sources that are on your side. I am not insulting you in any way, we can certainly agree to disagree. Bmccoy1111 ( talk) 19:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to restore the plum photo until we can find a better one. Bmccoy1111 ( talk) 20:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
In this dif, User:Bmccoy1111 deleted a big chunk of text from the body, with the edit note: "Removed "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.", because it is repetitive and already stated in the beginning of the article)". This deletion was later reverted by User:Thargor Orlando in this dif with edit note " Restoring current consensus version, see talk"
The reasons stated for the deletion by Bmccoy1111 are incorrect. As per The Manual of Style on the lead section - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section - the lead is supposed to be repetitive and the lead is only supposed to have content that is already in the body. You write the body first, and then you write the lead, summarizing the body. If something is not in the body, it should not be in the lead! Bmccoy1111 did not provide valid grounds for deleting this content from the body. User:Bmccoy1111 it is frustrating that you are making aggressive edits, and not talking, when you do not understand how Wikipedia works and you do not understand the subject matter very well. Please slow down, and talk about things. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 19:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll just leave this page alone until I understand Wikipedia more, as it is a very controversial subject at the time. Bmccoy1111 ( talk) 20:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't a date be specified in the claim that, "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food" and in the accompanying Request for Comments (RfC)? That RfC ran from July to September 2013. For example, shouldn't the statement read something more like "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market as of mid-2013 and derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food"? Or make it two sentences like, "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food; this does not include foods introduced since mid-2013"?
To what extent might that "broad scientific consensus" extend to GM foods introduced since the most recent scientific article reviewed during that period?
For example, does that consensus include GMO apples, currently under regulatory review in the US and Canada? DavidMCEddy ( talk) 19:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
today user:BrianWo added content on labelling in these difs]. I moved that content in part into the Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms article in this dif and in part (as there was duplication) into the Genetically modified food controversies article, in this dif. This reason for this is WP:SUMMARY. Both the Regulation and Controversies articles are very very long, and we have worked hard to edit these articles so they are well organized and synced, and cover all the relevant issues. There is constant temptation to add material to this article but such efforts often bring detail that doesn't rise to the Lead of the split articles and so shouldn't be here either. Hope this makes sense; happy to discuss. Jytdog ( talk) 11:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no mention whatsoever of wheat in the article. Wheat is modified to withstand herbicides, pesticides and drought. Seems to me that would increase our ingestion of poison in our diet, since wheat is in so many processed foods. Besides that, GMO wheat products spike blood sugar faster than eating pure sugar. 108.194.197.251 ( talk) 21:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Let me put it right up-front: I admit I am no expert on GMO food. But I am scientist and know how to dig scientific literature. Searching the literature for an hour or so, I do not find any broad scientific consensus that GMO is safe; rather, I found there is some controversy, and that some GMO foods are considered safe, while others are not. Moreover, some foods have not been extensively tested or need to be tested longer.
Please read, consider, and take a stance, on e.g., this review, in particular the 'Final remarks' therein if you're in a hurry: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412011000055
How can one state in this Wikipedia article that there is a broad scientific consensus? In the light of (even) one article (above), I must conclude: the statement quoted in the subject/headline is false. According to the article there is rather a 1:1 I'd like to ask the editor of the article to have a look at this. and consider that this wikipedia article is not neutrally written.
Let me quote from above review: "However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies (Domingo, 2007). The scientific community may finally be able to critically evaluate and discuss all that information, which was not possible until now. Scientists know quite well how different may be the information published in reputed international journals, which has been submitted to peer-review processes, from those general comments/reports not submitted to this selective procedure. "
I second this article is not neutrally written. 'Some' instead of 'broad' would be much more appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.229.58 ( talk) 07:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: requested discussion of my change from:
to:
The original text sounded to me like it was implying the FDA has a blanket policy that there is no difference between GMO and non-GMO foods, so it doesn't test them and doesn't require labelling. I did not do a very good job clarifying, so here's a second try. Maybe what we want to say is:
The parts of the referenced source I have in mind are:
Any thoughts? -- Beland ( talk) 21:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen such a hatnote on any other article. It is blatantly opposed to Wikipedia style conventions; essentially a "See also" list of associative links disguised as a hatnote. "Genetically modified food" is not an ambiguous title. There is no reason to present people with links to related content at this prominent position, which is specifically to guide readers who are likely to have arrived at the wrong article. WP:RELATED specifically discourages hatnotes merely linking to related content, and does not mention any exceptions. Therefore, I have removed the hatnote again. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 00:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (24 June 2014), Environmental Sciences Europe
‘Significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures’
The study examines the health effects on rats of eating Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and adjuvants) in drinking water. It found:
“the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments.
“Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted.
“These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic consequences.
“Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.”
The paper concludes: ”Taken together, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work reveal the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes.
“They also show that the conclusion of the Monsanto authors that the initial indications of organ toxicity found in their 90-day experiment were not ‘biologically meaningful’ is not justifiable.
“We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and complete pesticide formulations must be evaluated thoroughly in long-term studies to measure their potential toxic effects.”
IjonTichy ( talk) 18:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
For me GM foods are very harmful as it changes the genetic quality and can make it harmful to consume it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.37.130 ( talk) 15:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genetically modified food has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vandana-shiva/from-seeds-of-suicide-to_b_192419.html 203.192.255.248 ( talk) 19:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Please include details as listed on posts above, is wikipedia paid by these private comnpanies to hide the real danger of gmo seeds. Many times ion the article its mentioned that genetically modified crops are same as conventional, just read about the dangers in above link. It lead to suicide of 250,000 farmers in india and its not even mentioned once that how they completely destroy the farming economy, the land, the crops, etc.
If wikipedia is not a paid source of private corporates, prove it!!!
On this page (Genetically Modified Foods) in the section labeled Foods with protein or DNA remaining from GMOs, the following sentence appears:
"There are currently no transgenic potatoes marketed for human consumption.[21]"
This is no longer true, according to the third paragraph following, about the USDA approval and release to the market of the Simplot company's Innate potato.
This sentence needs to be deleted.
172.56.20.30 ( talk) 06:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)David Kinne
In the introduction, it would be appropriate to note that genetic modification simply refers to the editing of DNA sequence, and cannot be classified as entirely dangerous or not. It depends on the genes being altered. Much like changes in the human genome can be favorable (e.g. HIV resistance through Ccr5 polymorphism), unfavorable (e.g. CFTR mutation causing cystic fibrosis), or context-dependent (e.g. polymorphism for sickle cell anemia).
Also, what is required to be able to edit this page? I have a PhD from Harvard. Thanks. CellbioPhD ( talk) 05:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)cellbiophd
Maybe this article or the sources it links to can be used for something, here or in one of the subarticles. [5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI. The claim of "scientific consensus" on GMO safety is being discussed here and was briefly discussed here. David Tornheim ( talk) 05:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Took a run through this. Feedback encouraged. Comments:
Cheers! Lfstevens ( talk) 01:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)