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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
It's more clear to readers if we reserve the work risk for potential dangers of deploying GM food - rather than referring to the health "risk" of delaying deployment. Everyone knows that millions of people die each year from starvation.
Also, let's copy the outline of risks and benefits from Talk:Genetically modified food.
If other people help, I know this spin-off is a good idea. Otherwise, I'm going to mave ve-ry slow-ly on this. -- Uncle Ed 02:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Check in the third paragraph under 'Present knowledge on GM food safety'. Seems like vandalism to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.85.162 ( talk) 08:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Can we make a taxobox to group the articles? I'm thinking of these as the main three:
There may be more. Writers need to be aware of the division, especially when trying to do a merge (or when moving sections). -- Uncle Ed 13:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering, where did all the sources go? There area bunch of notes, but they don't refer to anything. Weezcake 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
They're back Matt Yohe ( talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Link number 26 doesn't go where it says it goes, there is nothing about the Amish on there. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.165.53.18 (
talk)
07:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
See [1], it's in French. Other than that very informative. Pro bug catcher ( talk • contribs). 21:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, Paul Lewis in the article doesn't point to the right Paul Lewis. Either remove the link or correct it? Capuchin 10:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Paul Lewis (professor) ; freshly written. `' Míkka 22:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This article does seem a bit biased in favor of Genetic Modification, almost as if the contoversy is that scientists have the audacity to question the agribusinesses' statements on the safety of GMO products, not the very relevent health issues regarding their products. It'd be nice to see more information on Árpád Pusztai's findings that were published in a 1999 article in the Lancet, and a more neutral tone overall Evets70 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"To date, not a single instance of harm to human health or the environment has been documented with GM crops. Several benefits have been widely accepted and are uncontested in the scientific literature." Right at the beginning of the article seems pretty biased to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.181.209 ( talk) 23:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
From one paragraph to the next, I seem to be reading an article written by pro Gm then anti GM supporters arguing with each other. Sort of like “Yeah, but… no but, yeah but”. Another example where the Wikipedia project is useless when it comes down to controversy, politics or religion. Does anyone else get sick of attempts of subtle coercion by editors with their own narrow agenda to spout? I don't believe in it, but take a look at the Creationism article for instance. Lots of 'I must have the last word' rubbish throughout each section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Gibbon ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No do you know whats completely useless...a bias article. Wiki-articles on controversy, politics, or religion should be like arguing because there is no correct answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrodsp ( talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Many questions and controversies have obviously surrounded the GM food technology. However, it is merely a matter of a personal choice - should we be involved in genetically modifying foods is not the question we should ask. Instead, just simply do not eat it! I have heard many accounts of vandalism against food that has been modified through biotechnology. Are they justified in their beleifs? No! They are not justified because there are many advantages to biotchenologically modified food which can benefit society. If they disagree with it, they simply should not eat it. Another thing that I've been hearing lately is the attempted legal means of ridding GM foods. Once again, legal means against the development of biotechnology-modified foods should not be taken because the advantages of GM foods outweigh the disadvantages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesguy45 ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
How about the fact that organic gardeners and farmers do not want any contamination from GMO polen and seeds? We can refuse eating GMO food, but what garantuees do we have that organic or non-organic food is devoid of contamination. That is a very important problem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.57.124 ( talk) 09:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Lets face it, only 2% of Britains are fully happy to eat GM crops (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3134278.stm. Last updated September 24th 2003). So surely the article needs to be slightly bias against GM crops to reflect this, not for it?! And maybe a conclusion is needed, or its far too hard to understand all the arguments for and against... And about the mention of more on Árpád Pusztai's results? Well, I read through the article myself and just found it to be incredibly irritating as I don't know what to make of it. Theres also no real conclusion for it, and especially for using it as a reference it's useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.90.220 ( talk) 09:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is about as biased as it gets – and I only read the intro. Firstly, it bores people with statistics about how many industry-financed studies have failed to find evidence that GM foods are harmful, when such studies can’t be trusted anyway. Secondly it has got the cheek to mention the emotive subject of blindness. A GM cure of blindness is a pipe-dream proposed for no other reason than to produce good headlines, Vitamin A pills are a much more cost-effective solution to this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.106.247 ( talk) 14:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably one of the most biased article i've read on wiki. Show yourself, GM enthusiast! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.224.54 ( talk) 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The block quote in the 'Allergenicity' section contained a comment in parenthesis that was not part of the quote on the linked web page - seemed to be someone's personal opinion. I have removed the comment, as it was unsourced and it made it look as though the comment was part of the referenced quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 ( talk) 09:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone dig through this article( http://www.psrast.org/btkillssheep.htm) or possibly find a better one to have more information on this topic (if it is deemed important)?
A link from a link in the Google search leads to http://www.financialexpress.com/old/fe_full_story.php?content_id=125649 Is a story in May '06 about Indian cotton production and it doesn't mention the dead sheep, but does mention that the crop was a massive economic failure. http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2662 appears to be a rebuttal (talks about cattle, not sheep). http://www.socialsciences.cornell.edu/0609/Contentious_Knowledge_kickoff.pdf is a powerpoint presentation that I wish I could hear the talk on, since it seems very appropriate to this conversation, but pages 17-30 seem to include more background on the framing story in India as far as the economic viability. Somedumbyankee ( talk) 07:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
GM lobbiests often mention price that food prices will increase if labelling is enforced. Their claims get more inflated as time goes by. In Russia it was from 0.5% to 15%. In the Phillipines, "as much as 12%". Now, in South Africa, the claim has jumped to "a minimum of 15%". I can't find any citations for their claims. This controversy belongs here. I'll probably make a start on it in a few days, but perhaps someone with more information readily available can make a start in the meantime. Greenman ( talk) 00:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the title be changed to "Genetically modified organism controversy". The GMO controversy is a common way to refer to this. The controversy is not just about food; it's also about using GMOs to produce pharmaceuticals. II | ( t - c) 23:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The article had this to say: This study indicates some of the possible risks of GM foods. In particular that there is no law or regulation in either the United States or Canada that required Pioneer Hi-Bred or any other company for testing for allergenicity or toxicity of GM foods prior to them being licensed to be grown and consumed in their respected countries.[16] Citing Nestle, Marion. Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism, 2003, University of California Press
I have not read the cited text. But Marion Nestle is wrong.
In the USA Food and Drug Administration regulates the safety GM food using the same standards and requirements as under U.S. food law generally. Substances added to food that do not meet the statutory definition of "generally recognized as safe," and that are not pesticides, are classified as food or color additives and must be pre-approved before they may be marketed.
Manufacturers GM foods are held responsible for the safety of their products under both general US law and general provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In addtion prior to marketing these GM foods manufacturers are required to submit to FDA documentation demonstrating their safety and await approval for their use [2].
I've removed a couple citations which were not cited appropriately in the lead supporting GM safety. Having read the NAS report, it does not say that "GM food is proven safe", but rather that "to date, effects have not been documented", and actually says there should be a lot more regulation. Other articles:
1Institute of Animal Nutrition, Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL), Braunschweig, Germany, 2College of Medical and Life Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, and 3Institute of Organic Farming, Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL), Trenthorst, Germany]
On the other hand, the most recent 2009 review seems to say that GM foods are not that safe. So clearly casting the safety as some sort of consensus is poor. I summarized its statement.
Notably, no coverage of ecological effects, which are probably equally of concern in the literature. II | ( t - c) 19:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
can some people from here help create a summary of this page for the genetically modified food page? It is a mess and we could use some help :) Matsuiny2004 ( talk) 22:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot of scientific context missing from this article, and also even the Genetically modified food article. Most people are not familiar with Recombinant DNA and even basic genetics and it needs to have a section that leads people in the right place. This article is also missing a lot of criticism that exists in the scientific croud. Someone should watch David Suzuki's On the nature of Things episode of GM crops for even a basic introduction and try to include some of that stuff. Stuff such as: infertility of crops, heterogeneous being more susceptible to diseases, unstudied interactions, legality of patents on living organisms, for example. This article instead just focuses on a few scandals but there are much more fundamental topics: Genetic modification is playing god, and that creates many implications. Scientus ( talk) 09:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't see the relevance of a toxic dietary supplement to the safety of GM food. Please read this source for some background. The tryptophan was produced by fermentation using a genetically-modified strain of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and then purified from the growth media. Describing a pure chemical (with toxic trace contamination in this case) as a "food" seems a bit of a stretch to me. This material might belong in the dietary supplement article, but vitamin and amino acid supplements are not food. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
In 1989, Showa Denko genetically engineered a diet supplement to produce tryptophan at high levels which unexpectantly also produced trace amounts of a toxic dimerisation tryptophan product which caused Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome. In the first months of use 37 people died and 1500 became permanently disabled. It is believed several hundred more have since died. The GE product was a purified single chemical which had passed the required substantial equivalence testing. Some scientists arguing for extreme caution in dealing with genetically engineered foods point out that if the substance had caused delayed harm, such as cancer 20 years later there would have been no way to attribute the harm to the cause. [1] [2] [3]
I'm afraid you are wrong on all counts. All dietary supplements are regulated by the FDA as foods and have to pass substantial equivalency or comply with the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 to be marketed. According to the act, if the supplement does not contain a new ingredient and the ingredient was previously sold in the United States before October 15, 1994 then no safety testing is required as it is assumed to be substantial equivalent. Compliance is determined solely by the information that the manufacturer provides and if the supplement complies with the act it can be marketed without FDA approval. However, under FDA Rule 21 CFR 111, the FDA still regulates quality control and labeling while the manufacturer is required to submit adverse event reports. Analysis by high pressure liquid chromatography indicated that the product was more than 99.6% pure tryptophan and the contaminate 0.01% of the total mass. The genetically engineered tryptophan was equal in purity, and thus considered substantially equivalent to that produced using natural bacteria. The incident is relevant for this article solely as an example of the failure of substantial equivalency let alone it's toxic affects. Wayne ( talk) 07:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
See thread here. Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the edits made by Ttguy because there seems to be a POV problem with the edit comments. If there are problems with the revert please discuss and we can work something out.
In this edit the text below was added:
A human feeding study found that a gene and it's promoter (a promoter activates the gene) that were inserted into Roundup Ready soy both transfered to the DNA of intestinal bacteria. Although no effects have been documented, as the gene produces a bacterial protein partly identical with a shrimp protein known to be allergenic it is possible that a person with a shrimp allergy eating the soy may get problems in the long term from their own gut bacteria producing the protein.
*Netherwood, et al, Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 22 Number 2 February 2004.
Looking through the paper cited (link) You will find that it states on the top of page 207 that the full-length gene was not detected in these bacteria, states on page 208 that this is "highly unlikely" to pose a risk to human health, and does not mention shrimp or allergic reactions at all. This attempt to insert original research using false sources is very serious and I'll report this at the OR noticebosrd. Tim Vickers ( talk) 15:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
As I'm not a biologist the fault is likely in my rewriting the summary to avoid plagiarism. The original summary in it's entirety read:
A human feeding study found that the gene which was articially inserted into RR-soy turned up in the DNA of gut bacteria.
This may have several problematic consequences: The bacteria are enabled to create the foreign protein. If it is toxic (like in the case of Bt-toxin) or allergenic (as in the case of RR-soy protein), they may continue producing the harmful substance for years after you have eaten just one meal of the GE food. For example, the RR-Soy gene produces a bacterial protein which is partly identical with an allergenic shrimp protein. Consequently a person with shrimp allergy may get lasting problems from eating RR soy.
The same research found that also the promoter, that is attached to the inserted gene, also was transferred to the intestinal bacteria.
*Netherwood, et al, Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 22 Number 2 February 2004.
Wayne ( talk) 16:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
. This just shows how ignorant PSRAST is. The whole point about digestive systems is that they break up DNA into small fragments. So to just blindly assert that the whole transgeen can be incorporated without citing any evidence is just wrong. Ttguy ( talk) 00:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)we find it justified to assume that whole transgene can be incorporated as well
Not too long ago, PMID 18989835 was referenced in the article. It was quietly removed by User:TimVickers using the edit summary "Add RSM" [3]. A while ago I suggested some ground rules for editing and edit summaries ( Talk:Genetically_modified_food#Ground_rules:_use_edit_summaries.2C_note_when_references_are_removed_and_why). I don't think this is an unreasonable request. I'd like an explanation as to why this review was deleted. II | ( t - c) 17:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
One of the major areas of controversy relating to GM foods is corporate control over the food supply, which this article ignores. I've added a start with a quickly Googled source, but the section needs expansion and better sources. Greenman ( talk) 11:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Greenman was referring to dependence on pesticides which, from what I've read, can only be applied to genetically-modified plants. Also, Monsanto was (is?) suing farmers for GMO pollen being blown into their non-GMO crop fields and producing tolerant plants. Farmers would feel obliged to grow GMO crops just to keep out of court. I'd consider that corporate control. 207.50.147.26 ( talk) 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a bad study ("It remains to be tested whether this DNA was still within the plant residues") but someone may have additional information.- Nutriveg ( talk) 16:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
These are news that worth following: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html -- Nutriveg ( talk) 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I find the map at least misleading. In Switzerland and Italy the cultivation of GM products is banned. In Italy there had been some test crops but no production. http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/gmo-free-regions/bans.html Since the majority of the sources cited by the maps are in Russian are quite difficult to evaluate.--Dia^ 22:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dia^ ( talk • contribs)
The Map is misleading because it is not nuanced. There should either be more categories, or to keep it simple, the map could show countries where GE food for human consumption (as opposed to feed for livestock) is legal, but hasn't been approved for commercialization. There are some countries where GE foods are legal, but they have not been commercialized or grown outside experimental settings. For example, India recently put a moratorium on approving the first GE food for humans, BT Brinjal [ [4]], so there is not currently any GE food that is grown. (BT cotton is approved and grown). The map should be taken down until more categories or nuanced reading of what is after all a "controversy" can be articulated. Infoeco ( talk) 16:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
One good source may be Clive James, ISAAA Brief 41-2009 which lists the 15 biotech mega-growing countries and lists their crops. Other than U.S. and China all other countries are growing maize, or soy for processing or livestock feed. Infoeco ( talk) 16:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This article implies there's strong opposition to GE crops being eaten, but most GE foods are very likely to be safe. Even those who are against GE foods usually only demand that the GE foods be labeled, much like the ingredients, and it's a negelectable miniority who actually wants a real ban on the crops. To avoid implying the that opposition, we need to mention that many of those critics really only want GE foods to be labeled. 173.183.79.81 ( talk) 07:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted some material from the lede because of several problems. For instance this section:
Several benefits have been widely accepted and are uncontested in the scientific literature. These include reductions in insecticide use on GE cotton,[1] enhanced biological diversity in GE cotton fields (compared to non-GE fields),[2] enhanced farmer income[3] and communal benefits,[4] increased yields for poor farmers[5] and improved health of farmworkers.[6] Although the use of herbicide tolerant crops remain controversial, because of the need to spray herbicides, it is clear that the use of these crops has promoted a shift to less toxic herbicides.[7]
Other than GM cotton, there is a huge amount of information that contests the benefits of GM crops. But even for cotton, which appears to be the most successful, to make such a broad statement and then offer one ref or a ref from Arizona is not acceptable. Gandydancer ( talk) 11:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't help but think that some of the paragraphs in this article are just too long to read comfortably (500 words seems excessive). They could probably be divided into manageable parts with minimal changes. Attys ( talk) 04:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The section currently states: The manufacturer's data is then assessed by an independent regulatory body, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This is apparently not correct as "data" implies scientific data and the sentence doesn't say that submitting the data is voluntary. While substantial equivalency is recognised world wide, it is handled in two different ways. The FDA substantial equivalency regulations run into tens of thousands of words but after reading them I feel they can probably be summed up as the following. In the United States, companies are self-regulating and, with the exception of GM foods that make a health claim, there is no requirement to seek approval before marketing a product the manufacturer deems substantially equivalent. The procedure is as follows. The manufacturer consults with the FDA to discuss the modification intended and to determine what tests are required. After developing the product, the manufacturer voluntarily submits a notification that states that the substantially equivalent product is "generally regarded as safe" (a GRAS exemption claim) to which the FDA replies with a "recognition of safety" GRAS approval accepting the manufacterers claim of substantial equivalency and safety. The notification from the manufacturer includes a statement that "the data and information that are the basis for [their] determination are available...to [the] FDA upon request," however, in practice, summaries of the manufacturer's safety and nutritional assessment data is assessed by an independent regulatory body, such as the Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Environmental Protection Agency depending on the type of product being developed. Compliance with these FDA "recommendations" is strictly voluntary but is almost universal, apparently as complying gives some legal immunity if something is found to be wrong with the product later but at no time does the regulatory body require the actual assessment data as it assumes the manufacturers claims are correct and that the product is GRAS. Have I missed something? In the European Union, companies must provide scientific evidence to support their claim of substantial equivalence (1997 Novel Food Regulation) in place of a safety and nutritional assessment before marketing. Considering that the substantial equivalence process is a major argument against GM foods I think both sytems should be mentioned. Comments?
Early in May 2012, the Radio Four programme Today reported on a conflict between a group called "Take the Flour Back" and Rothamsted_Experimental_Station, and mentioned a protest the former group were staging against the trial Rothamsted were planning for May 27 2012 to use genetically modified wheat to protect wheat against aphids. This is a big controversy, so this should have some mention in the article. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
A recent study by apparently reputable scientists has been released by Earth Open Source in UK. It's stance is firmly against GM foods. Some of its findings should perhaps be included in the article. -- Dandv( talk| contribs) 23:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Transgenics should be restricted to Biology, Chemistry, and the physics of containment, wherever possible. To that end, I have moved all of the sections under controversies in that article to this article. 142.59.48.238 ( talk) 19:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The article is titled "Genetically modified food controversies." This implies there is actually some controversy about genetically modified (or, more precisely transgenic) foods.
There is currently no legitimate science that would contraindicate the use of transgenic foods. In fact, there isn't even the slightest bit theory behind why it could hypothetically be harmful.
The article's title should read "Opposition to genetically modified food." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvttc ( talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The articles this discussion should concern:
The concept of genetically modifying organisms (especially crops/food) is a fairly controversial topic, so I would imagine that the articles get a fair amount of visitors. That said, I want to point out some issues to the articles that could be fixed. I've assigned numbers to each suggestion/issue, so that they can be discussed in separate sections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutsi ( talk • contribs)
hi read this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purebuzzin ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
If nothing else could we get an answer to this issue. The paragraphs that this concerns are these ones. AIRcorn (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi
IMO, any time we have subarticles, there should be a standard, brief paragraph in the "head" article (ideally taken from the lede of the subarticle and edited for concision if necessary) and a link to "main", and then keep an eye on those standard paragraphs for changes so that they stay short and plain. Ideally, no statistics would be in those standard paragraphs, otherwise when new data emerges we have to go back and update the data in many places which will inevitably lead to missing things and the overall suite falling out of sync within itself and with reality. I feel that we should try hard to avoid having long sections in different articles that cover the same matter. This was the state in which I found articles within this suite several months ago and most of my work has been consolidating overlapping material into clear, NPOV, well sourced discussions. Having a suite of articles covering various aspects of complex matter is indeed common in WIkipedia, but it is also commonly handed badly IMO. For instance in the suite of evolution articles, the main evolution article has a history section that is very long (7 paragraphs that fill my screen)... and there is an entire much longer subarticle on the history (about 10x longer). I glanced over the two texts and they don't tell the same story or even use the same refs.... this is not a happy thing for an encyclopedia and we should avoid doing this. This is for me a very important principle and I hope we can discuss it. Jytdog ( talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
(starting tabs over) Hi Aircorn... so far nobody has gone to the mat on the the self references. With respect to the objection raised in Issue 1, I wrote above, that if you read Wiki's self-reference policy, it is clear that these texts do not violate that policy. Nobody has responded to that so I assume nobody disagrees. My sense is that you and arc de ciel have objected on more stylistic grounds... but neither of you has gone to the mat on this. Is this indeed important to you?
But let's go back to the subject matter of this section. I have been trying to lay down a principle that sections for which we have big subarticles should just be very brief stubs - 1 paragraph taken from the lede of the subarticle, so that we don't end up with long, weedy descriptions of a given issue in different articles that extensively overlap with each other and with the main subarticle... which leads to inconsistencies and disorganization that you have described as a bane of wikipedia (and I heartily agree!). I thought we had kind of agreed on this... but you just recently expanded one of these stub sections with a bunch of material copied from a subarticle. So what gives? How shall we do this? I have been tempted to go into some of the articles you have created and apply this "stub principle" (for instance you have a section on "regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms" in your "regulation of genetic engineering" article that is my mind is waaaay too long and should be just a stub, as we have a whole article on "regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms") but i have held back from stubifying that section until (and only if) we reach consensus here. Jytdog ( talk) 18:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really watching the articles right now, but I just wanted to confirm that the objections I raised were indeed answered. It doesn't "feel good" from my own style perspective, but I don't know of any style guideline that rules it out. Also, I think that the general organization Jytdog has put in place is a good one; as he said, my concerns were only about the way they were disambiguated. It seems that people adding the same citations repeatedly is common in this group of articles, and this organization would probably help a lot. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 03:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Let's have a focused discussion on overall structure. This is part of the topic mentioned above but only part. Let's map it out. It would be really great to do this with some kind of software that allowed us to draw things, but I am ignorant of how to do that. So I will take a shot at this using words alone.
Here is my perspective
All this done with the principle of subarticles mentioned above... Jytdog ( talk) 14:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I like the smallification of text!! didn't know one could do that. Funny that you have "animal based" - there is no GM food from animals (yet). but in theory i see what you mean. But i disagree really really strongly that "GM crops" is main for plant-based GM food. GM crops is about agriculture. its not about food. why do you think gm crops is about food? more to say but that stopped me - one thing at a time! Jytdog ( talk) 03:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I understand that there are some ideas about Michael Taylor that circulate in the anti-GM community and are accepted as facts in that community. And the exact way that this text was stated, is the exact way it is stated on many anti-GM sites. That's fine, but Wiki needs to have a neutral standpoint and facts need to be sourced. I will try to find some sources, but if anybody else can find unbiased sources please add them. This is important because this is about a living person. Wiki has strict policies on statements about living people and statements not supported by reliable sources will need to be deleted.
Two sources have been cited so far:
Baden-Meyer, A. Obama puts GMO booster in charge of food safety. Organic Consumers Association July 22, 2009 Retrieved September 21, 2012 which is here
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18635.cfm
and
Obama Gives Former Food Lobbyist Michael Taylor a Second Chance at the FDA] CBS News January 15, 2010
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-44040110/obama-gives-former-food-lobbyist-michael-taylor-a-second-chance-at-the-fda/
I was hopeful about the CBS news piece but it is clearly editorial, not news. It is POV. Organic Consumers by definition is POV on this issue.
Nobody can dispute facts sourced from neutral references - let's use them!
Also, description needs to be neutral. At an agency like the FDA, no one person can be responsible for any policy especially not something as major as the way GM food would be regulated.
Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 11:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2236&context=bclr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Drisk%2520and%2520regulation%253A%2520u.s.%2520regulatory%2520policy%2520on%2520genetically%2520modified%2520food%2520and%2520agriculture%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CDEQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flawdigitalcommons.bc.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2236%2526context%253Dbclr%26ei%3DyA5dUMPYJNPq0QHOtIDgBw%26usg%3DAFQjCNFfxx7Tk1PLvv-a6B2mDC5_6kMosA#search=%22risk%20regulation%3A%20u.s.%20regulatory%20policy%20genetically%20modified%20food%20agriculture%22
(sorry for the long url) Will keep looking!
Jytdog (
talk)
23:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
so we have it handy here is the text that i believe violates the biographies policy - I de-formatted the references so they are visible
Critics in the US have protested in regards to the appointment of pro GM lobbyists to senior positions in the FDA.
Michael R. Taylor was appointed as a senior adviser to the FDA on food safety in 1991. Taylor is a former Monsanto lobbyist responsible for the ban on GMO labeling, is credited with being responsible for the implementation of "substantial equivalence" in place of food safety studies and known for his advocacy that resulted in the
Delaney clause that prohibited the inclusion of "any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man.. or animals" in processed foods being amended in 1996 to allow the inclusion of pesticides in GMOs. (ref name="Baden-Meyer" Baden-Meyer, A.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18635.cfm Obama puts GMO booster in charge of food safety Organic Consumers Association July 22, 2009 Retrieved September 21, 2012) (ref
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-44040110/obama-gives-former-food-lobbyist-michael-taylor-a-second-chance-at-the-fda/ CBS News January 15, 2010) Following his tenure at the FDA, Taylor became a vice-president of Monsanto and critics have called for a review of his work at the FDA citing a conflict of interest. On July 7, 2009, Mr Taylor returned to government as the "senior advisor" to the Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration for the Obama administration.(ref
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2009/ucm170842.htm)
the statements that are problematic are:
1) Taylor is ...responsible for the ban on GMO labeling
2) (Taylor)...is ...responsible for the implementation of "substantial equivalence" in place of food safety studies (actually says "credited with being responsible" but that is just weaselly)
3) (Taylor) ..is known for his advocacy that resulted in the
Delaney clause that prohibited the inclusion of "any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man.. or animals" in processed foods being amended in 1996 to allow the inclusion of pesticides in GMOs.
The following statement is probably supportable, but no citation is given:
4) Following his tenure at the FDA, Taylor became a vice-president of Monsanto and critics have called for a review of his work at the FDA citing a conflict of interest.
Jytdog (
talk)
01:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
"Mr. Taylor is popular among many food-safety and nutrition advocates, who call him intelligent and courageous." and later: "At a food-safety conference in Washington last year, Dr. Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, stood in the hallway and debated Mr. Taylor’s qualities with Russell Libby, the executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. “He’s extremely knowledgeable and public-health oriented,” Dr. Jacobson said in a later interview." Not everybody views this guy as bad. Jytdog ( talk) 02:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, so I spent most of today working on Taylor's wiki article. Michael R. Taylor I found sources that I believe are balanced. Please have a look there and tell me what you think! Jytdog ( talk) 22:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS.
Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov;50(11):4221-31.
doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005.
Epub 2012 Sep 19.
Abstract
The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1ppb in water), were studied 2years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3-2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.
PMID
22999595
[PubMed - in process]
Full Free Text:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf
-- Ocdnctx ( talk) 19:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I just went through the article, and I made various comments which can be found here on a user subpage:
User:Jjjjjjjjjj/genetically_modified_food_controversies
Each comment is prefixed word the word "WikiComment".
Comments are stemming in part from the current debate going on in California with respect to Proposition 37:
Some comments include proposed revisions, but others are questions or reports on data or explorations.
Please feel free to take a look.
Responses could be written on the user subpage and/or here. Here may be better so that this can be the main page for any dialog.
Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 05:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thanks for your comments! addressed CA referendum in the lede -- good suggestion. will address others later! thanks again! Jytdog ( talk) 12:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
"The first thing that leaps to my mind is why has nothing emerged from epidemiological studies in the countries where so much GM has been in the food chain for so long? If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren’t the North Americans dropping like flies?! - Prof Mark Tester, Research Professor, Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, University of Adelaide
I received a response from Mark Tester (see blockquote above) -- and he wrote about epidemiological studies. I've summarized what he wrote at this user page:
User:Jjjjjjjjjj/genetically_modified_food_controversies_epidemiological_studies
Perhaps this could later be integrated into the article.
Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 22:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Alright, changes have now gone through to the article and I also made some comments at User:Jjjjjjjjjj/genetically_modified_food_controversies
Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 08:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
One other thing: one can see that traffic to this article page went from 5,462 in August 2012, to 24,187 in September 2012, and already 27,718 for October 2012:
this is probably coming from the Proposition 37 debate.
Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 06:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Surveys indicate that a majority of Americans support mandatory labeling. (However, such surveys often do not specify the effect on food prices.)
Hi on the last statement from Nature. That was not a "peer reviewed paper", it was an opinion piece, and was roundly criticized in subsequent opinion pieces after it was published. This is the same sloppiness that I have found over and over in the anti-GM literature. That opinion piece is actually discussed in the Controversies article as is the criticism of it. That quote from Philip Angell is from the "Harvest of Fear" piece and the anti-GM community loves those quotes - one sees them all the time. They seem to be a perfect expression of corporate callousness. With respect to your comments about the FDA, I am sorry that you do not understand the regulatory process. I have tried to make sure the regulatory process is well explained in the regulation article; I will go back and review to make sure it is indeed clear. Briefly, in the US, the burden is on the sponsor of a new product to provide data and reasoning to the FDA that new products comply with the law - this is what the statement from the FDA expresses. It is the FDA's role to review that data and reasoning and judge -- in its sole judgement - whether the data and reasoning are sufficient to ensure that new product does comply with the law -- this is the meaning of the statement from Angell. The roles are clear - there is no ducking of responsibility. The exact same framework is in place throughout the US regulatory system. For instance with new drugs, the burden is on the company to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars it takes to conduct clinical trials - not on the government. The general perspective is that It would be a wasteful use of taxpayer money for the government to test new products that private companies will profit from, if the new products work during the testing, and will lose their shirt on, if the product fails during testing. The studies are risky -- many products fail during testing and are never even brought to regulators for final approval. I would certainly object if taxpayer dollars went to test new products instead of being used to build roads etc. Again -- saying it clearly and briefly -- in the US, companies pay for studies; regulators review those studies. Back to the larger topic: you still have not told me if you have read and thought about the documents produced by the OECD and FAO and the parallel documents produced in the US, to provide a regulatory framework. As I mentioned above, it seems to me that you have not. I don't understand how can criticize something so strongly that you do not understand. (but this is the climate-change-denier paradigm -- you don't agree with consequences, so you simply ignore or dismiss the data and information that leads to those consequences) Your assumption -- like the assumptions in the Nature opinion piece you cited -- appear to be that the regulators are in the pocket of the companies -- in other words, that they are corrupt. I view the regulatory community as working hard and in good faith to protect the public, and am very impressed with the documents they have produced, which frankly and clearly acknowledge the risks of GMOs (it is their job to see these risks clearly) and the practical limitations of time, money, scientific knowledge, and technology. I can't say anything other "Gee you really should educate yourself before you keep putting opinions out there." There I said it. I am happy to keep responding here but I wish you would do your own homework and that you would be more careful and thorough in your thinking. Jytdog ( talk) 13:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
An editor labelled the following statement, under the anti-labelling section, with citation needed and clarification needed templates. Consumers who want to buy non-GE food already have an option: to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot be produced with GE ingredients., using the edit summary "in the US this is not true". I've removed the fact tag, as that by definition is what certified organic is (I've linked to the article) - please add other discussions and reasons for the tags here. I understand that in the US accidental contamination is common due to the widespread use of GM crops, and that the 95% standard allows 5% of an organically-labelled product to be not organic (although still by definition approved). Please explain further how this is not true in the US. Greenman ( talk) 12:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Under the section "Health risks of consuming GM food" it does state that there is broad and regulatory consensus that GM food on the market is safe to eat but such an important conclusion by the scientific community should be mentioned in lede. Similar to how the global warming controversy page clearly states in its lede about the scientific consensus on global warming. Anyone else agree? Any objections to why it shouldn't be? BlackHades ( talk) 22:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Since the end of July the article has grown from 45 kB "readable prose size" to over 120 kB (19353 words) "readable prose size" almost tripling in size. While I agree that consolidation of the various articles needed to be done, it might be a good idea to look at reducing the size of this page. To my mind the best way to split would be to create articles devoted to Environmental and Health issues and summarise them here. So I propose the creation of Environmental concerns with genetic modification and Health concerns with genetic modification and splitting information from here to there. There is a risk that they could become WP:POV forks, but if handled correctly it should be no worse than this article is now (which is really a just a POV fork from Genetically modified food). AIRcorn (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the first priority for the article would be to get the lead down to a smaller size. Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 07:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
OK I just went through and did a lot of trimming. Trying to make everybody happy here. Jytdog ( talk) 02:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
lead is NOT a summary of the main body of text and so fails WP:LEAD, please address the concerns set out in the guidelines before removing the banner. Semitransgenic talk. 15:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I made a small rewording of the addition, since it was a sentence fragment.
Besides that, I don't think the word "enough" should be included, since it implies that there are risks above those associated with non-GM food. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 04:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems you're the one that needs to chill. How exactly does the statement violate NPOV? Who says the world will burn down? I'm perfectly fine with adding information that is contra-GMOs. I welcome input in that regard. Others have stated no objection. And you're not being very clear why it shouldn't be done. Specifically what is the issue you're having? NPOV? Length? Split? Are you trying to say it shouldn't be there if it's not getting split? You're being extremely vague and not clear what exactly you're objecting to. BlackHades ( talk) 01:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Pretty happy with the sentences as written. Just a few comments. I would remove nonetheless, it sounds weaselly and is not really needed. Also I am not so sure there is broad regulatory consensus. In America, Australia and most countries that actively grow the crops there would be, but Europe in particular does not seem to have it. You can't really have broad regulatory consensus when a large number of countries have moratoriums on restrictions on the use of GMOs. AIRcorn (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified food, genetically modified crops used to produce food and other goods, and other uses of genetically modified organisms in food production. The dispute involves consumers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified (GM) food are: risk of harm from GM food, whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the effect of GM crops on the environment, and GM crops' context as part of the industrial agriculture system.
There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food. Supporters of food derived from GMOs hold that food is as safe as other foods and that labels send a message to consumers that GM food is somehow dangerous. They trust that regulators and the regulatory process are sufficiently objective and rigorous, and that risks of contamination of the non-GM food supply and of the environment can be managed. They trust that there is sufficient law and regulation to maintain competition in the market for seeds, believe that GM technology is key to feeding a growing world population, and view GM technology as a continuation of the manipulation of plants that humans have conducted for millennia. Advocacy groups such as Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund have concerns that risks of GM food have not been adequately identified and managed, and have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities. Opponents of food derived from GMOs are concerned about the safety of the food itself and wish it banned, or at least labeled. They have concerns about the objectivity of regulators and rigor of the regulatory process, about contamination of the non-GM food supply, about effects of GMOs on the environment, about industrial agriculture in general, and about the consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs, especially in the developing world. Some are concerned that GM technology tampers too deeply with nature. |
” |
Semitransgenic, with regards to [6], could you please address the actual reasons that I gave for my edit? Arc de Ciel ( talk) 03:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
OK there is a proposal to split the article.
Below are the sections. Let's talk about what sections would go where if we were to split.
1 Public perception
2 Industrial agriculture
3 Labeling
4 Objectivity of regulatory bodies
5 Health risks of consuming GM food
6 Environmental risks and benefits
7 World Hunger
8 Agricultural economics
9 Intellectual property and market dynamics
10 Litigation in the US
11 India
12 Availability of GM seed for testing
13 Biological process
14 Religious issues
15 Controversial cases
15.1 Pusztai affair (health)
15.2 Lövei study on effect of Bt on non-target organisms
15.3 Aris study on human exposure to pesticides produced in GM foods
15.4 Netherwood study on gene transfer from food to humans
15.5 Séralini studies and responses
15.6 Protests
OK so here is a proposal: health is blue; environment is green; economic is red; mix is brown; don't know what to do with it, is black
1 Public perception (grab bag, includes health, environment, and economics)
2 Industrial agriculture (grab bag)
3 Labeling (really about health, I think, but also about regulatory)
4 Objectivity of regulatory bodies
5 Health risks of consuming GM food (health)
6 Environmental risks and benefits (enviromment)
7 World Hunger
8 Agricultural economics
9 Intellectual property and market dynamics
10 Litigation in the US
11 India
12 Availability of GM seed for testing
13 Biological process
14 Religious issues
15 Controversial cases
15.1 Pusztai affair (health)
15.2 Lövei study on effect of Bt on non-target organisms (environment)
15.3 Aris study on human exposure to pesticides produced in GM foods
15.4 Netherwood study on gene transfer from food to humans (health)
15.5 Séralini studies and responses (health)
15.6 Protests (this is about people attacking test fields where GM crops are grown which I image is a grab bag of reasons)
Looking at it, I don't think my idea of a pure split will work - there are too many mixed and unknown things that need a general article. I guess this is why aircorn (I think it was) proposed just splitting out health and environment and leaving brief discussions here. that would go a long way to cutting down the size, I guess... I still dread having discussions of controversial issues in more than one place, though. Jytdog ( talk) 22:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
Have you seen
this?
Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603. These are the conclusions of separate and independent assessments carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and six EU Member States...
Might be a good idea to tweak some of our content accordingly. bobrayner ( talk) 20:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! It is one of the many regulatory reports cited in the seralini sectin -- i think there were something 8 differnet regulatory agencies that found the study not credible.20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
i don't know how to edit an article, so could someone please add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_for_Social_Responsibility as one of the groups against GMOs? It seems pretty stilted to have two environmental groups, one of which is seen by most people as radical, but not include a huge group of physicians. Sorry if i did this wrong. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.247.31 ( talk) 17:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It's untrue that no spiritual system has designated GMOs as unaccecptable. some are forums, but not all spirutual groups have centralized voices.
Rastafari often talk against it. 1 2 3 4 so GMO is definately not Ital
Nation of Islam (NOI) teach that anything grafted from the original is "devil" that being the case, GMO would definately be banned. The above goes for the Nation of Gods and Earths.
Hebrew israelites also ban GMO's according to their official site 1 2
I'm sure I could find others, but this was just with a quick google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapblack ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC) vap ( talk) 22:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/european-union-urges-testing-of-us-wheat-imports-for-unapproved-strain/2013/05/31/eaaefcdc-c9fc-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_story.html Not sure how to incorporate this info in the page - it says Japan and South Korea have suspended wheat inports from the US following a discovery of an unapproved strain of wheat growing in Oregon, and the EU is advising members to test shipments. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 12:53, 3 June 2013 (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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
It's more clear to readers if we reserve the work risk for potential dangers of deploying GM food - rather than referring to the health "risk" of delaying deployment. Everyone knows that millions of people die each year from starvation.
Also, let's copy the outline of risks and benefits from Talk:Genetically modified food.
If other people help, I know this spin-off is a good idea. Otherwise, I'm going to mave ve-ry slow-ly on this. -- Uncle Ed 02:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Check in the third paragraph under 'Present knowledge on GM food safety'. Seems like vandalism to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.85.162 ( talk) 08:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Can we make a taxobox to group the articles? I'm thinking of these as the main three:
There may be more. Writers need to be aware of the division, especially when trying to do a merge (or when moving sections). -- Uncle Ed 13:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering, where did all the sources go? There area bunch of notes, but they don't refer to anything. Weezcake 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
They're back Matt Yohe ( talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Link number 26 doesn't go where it says it goes, there is nothing about the Amish on there. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.165.53.18 (
talk)
07:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
See [1], it's in French. Other than that very informative. Pro bug catcher ( talk • contribs). 21:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, Paul Lewis in the article doesn't point to the right Paul Lewis. Either remove the link or correct it? Capuchin 10:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Paul Lewis (professor) ; freshly written. `' Míkka 22:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This article does seem a bit biased in favor of Genetic Modification, almost as if the contoversy is that scientists have the audacity to question the agribusinesses' statements on the safety of GMO products, not the very relevent health issues regarding their products. It'd be nice to see more information on Árpád Pusztai's findings that were published in a 1999 article in the Lancet, and a more neutral tone overall Evets70 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"To date, not a single instance of harm to human health or the environment has been documented with GM crops. Several benefits have been widely accepted and are uncontested in the scientific literature." Right at the beginning of the article seems pretty biased to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.181.209 ( talk) 23:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
From one paragraph to the next, I seem to be reading an article written by pro Gm then anti GM supporters arguing with each other. Sort of like “Yeah, but… no but, yeah but”. Another example where the Wikipedia project is useless when it comes down to controversy, politics or religion. Does anyone else get sick of attempts of subtle coercion by editors with their own narrow agenda to spout? I don't believe in it, but take a look at the Creationism article for instance. Lots of 'I must have the last word' rubbish throughout each section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Gibbon ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No do you know whats completely useless...a bias article. Wiki-articles on controversy, politics, or religion should be like arguing because there is no correct answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrodsp ( talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Many questions and controversies have obviously surrounded the GM food technology. However, it is merely a matter of a personal choice - should we be involved in genetically modifying foods is not the question we should ask. Instead, just simply do not eat it! I have heard many accounts of vandalism against food that has been modified through biotechnology. Are they justified in their beleifs? No! They are not justified because there are many advantages to biotchenologically modified food which can benefit society. If they disagree with it, they simply should not eat it. Another thing that I've been hearing lately is the attempted legal means of ridding GM foods. Once again, legal means against the development of biotechnology-modified foods should not be taken because the advantages of GM foods outweigh the disadvantages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesguy45 ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
How about the fact that organic gardeners and farmers do not want any contamination from GMO polen and seeds? We can refuse eating GMO food, but what garantuees do we have that organic or non-organic food is devoid of contamination. That is a very important problem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.57.124 ( talk) 09:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Lets face it, only 2% of Britains are fully happy to eat GM crops (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3134278.stm. Last updated September 24th 2003). So surely the article needs to be slightly bias against GM crops to reflect this, not for it?! And maybe a conclusion is needed, or its far too hard to understand all the arguments for and against... And about the mention of more on Árpád Pusztai's results? Well, I read through the article myself and just found it to be incredibly irritating as I don't know what to make of it. Theres also no real conclusion for it, and especially for using it as a reference it's useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.90.220 ( talk) 09:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is about as biased as it gets – and I only read the intro. Firstly, it bores people with statistics about how many industry-financed studies have failed to find evidence that GM foods are harmful, when such studies can’t be trusted anyway. Secondly it has got the cheek to mention the emotive subject of blindness. A GM cure of blindness is a pipe-dream proposed for no other reason than to produce good headlines, Vitamin A pills are a much more cost-effective solution to this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.106.247 ( talk) 14:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably one of the most biased article i've read on wiki. Show yourself, GM enthusiast! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.224.54 ( talk) 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The block quote in the 'Allergenicity' section contained a comment in parenthesis that was not part of the quote on the linked web page - seemed to be someone's personal opinion. I have removed the comment, as it was unsourced and it made it look as though the comment was part of the referenced quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 ( talk) 09:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone dig through this article( http://www.psrast.org/btkillssheep.htm) or possibly find a better one to have more information on this topic (if it is deemed important)?
A link from a link in the Google search leads to http://www.financialexpress.com/old/fe_full_story.php?content_id=125649 Is a story in May '06 about Indian cotton production and it doesn't mention the dead sheep, but does mention that the crop was a massive economic failure. http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2662 appears to be a rebuttal (talks about cattle, not sheep). http://www.socialsciences.cornell.edu/0609/Contentious_Knowledge_kickoff.pdf is a powerpoint presentation that I wish I could hear the talk on, since it seems very appropriate to this conversation, but pages 17-30 seem to include more background on the framing story in India as far as the economic viability. Somedumbyankee ( talk) 07:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
GM lobbiests often mention price that food prices will increase if labelling is enforced. Their claims get more inflated as time goes by. In Russia it was from 0.5% to 15%. In the Phillipines, "as much as 12%". Now, in South Africa, the claim has jumped to "a minimum of 15%". I can't find any citations for their claims. This controversy belongs here. I'll probably make a start on it in a few days, but perhaps someone with more information readily available can make a start in the meantime. Greenman ( talk) 00:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the title be changed to "Genetically modified organism controversy". The GMO controversy is a common way to refer to this. The controversy is not just about food; it's also about using GMOs to produce pharmaceuticals. II | ( t - c) 23:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The article had this to say: This study indicates some of the possible risks of GM foods. In particular that there is no law or regulation in either the United States or Canada that required Pioneer Hi-Bred or any other company for testing for allergenicity or toxicity of GM foods prior to them being licensed to be grown and consumed in their respected countries.[16] Citing Nestle, Marion. Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism, 2003, University of California Press
I have not read the cited text. But Marion Nestle is wrong.
In the USA Food and Drug Administration regulates the safety GM food using the same standards and requirements as under U.S. food law generally. Substances added to food that do not meet the statutory definition of "generally recognized as safe," and that are not pesticides, are classified as food or color additives and must be pre-approved before they may be marketed.
Manufacturers GM foods are held responsible for the safety of their products under both general US law and general provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In addtion prior to marketing these GM foods manufacturers are required to submit to FDA documentation demonstrating their safety and await approval for their use [2].
I've removed a couple citations which were not cited appropriately in the lead supporting GM safety. Having read the NAS report, it does not say that "GM food is proven safe", but rather that "to date, effects have not been documented", and actually says there should be a lot more regulation. Other articles:
1Institute of Animal Nutrition, Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL), Braunschweig, Germany, 2College of Medical and Life Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, and 3Institute of Organic Farming, Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL), Trenthorst, Germany]
On the other hand, the most recent 2009 review seems to say that GM foods are not that safe. So clearly casting the safety as some sort of consensus is poor. I summarized its statement.
Notably, no coverage of ecological effects, which are probably equally of concern in the literature. II | ( t - c) 19:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
can some people from here help create a summary of this page for the genetically modified food page? It is a mess and we could use some help :) Matsuiny2004 ( talk) 22:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot of scientific context missing from this article, and also even the Genetically modified food article. Most people are not familiar with Recombinant DNA and even basic genetics and it needs to have a section that leads people in the right place. This article is also missing a lot of criticism that exists in the scientific croud. Someone should watch David Suzuki's On the nature of Things episode of GM crops for even a basic introduction and try to include some of that stuff. Stuff such as: infertility of crops, heterogeneous being more susceptible to diseases, unstudied interactions, legality of patents on living organisms, for example. This article instead just focuses on a few scandals but there are much more fundamental topics: Genetic modification is playing god, and that creates many implications. Scientus ( talk) 09:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't see the relevance of a toxic dietary supplement to the safety of GM food. Please read this source for some background. The tryptophan was produced by fermentation using a genetically-modified strain of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and then purified from the growth media. Describing a pure chemical (with toxic trace contamination in this case) as a "food" seems a bit of a stretch to me. This material might belong in the dietary supplement article, but vitamin and amino acid supplements are not food. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
In 1989, Showa Denko genetically engineered a diet supplement to produce tryptophan at high levels which unexpectantly also produced trace amounts of a toxic dimerisation tryptophan product which caused Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome. In the first months of use 37 people died and 1500 became permanently disabled. It is believed several hundred more have since died. The GE product was a purified single chemical which had passed the required substantial equivalence testing. Some scientists arguing for extreme caution in dealing with genetically engineered foods point out that if the substance had caused delayed harm, such as cancer 20 years later there would have been no way to attribute the harm to the cause. [1] [2] [3]
I'm afraid you are wrong on all counts. All dietary supplements are regulated by the FDA as foods and have to pass substantial equivalency or comply with the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 to be marketed. According to the act, if the supplement does not contain a new ingredient and the ingredient was previously sold in the United States before October 15, 1994 then no safety testing is required as it is assumed to be substantial equivalent. Compliance is determined solely by the information that the manufacturer provides and if the supplement complies with the act it can be marketed without FDA approval. However, under FDA Rule 21 CFR 111, the FDA still regulates quality control and labeling while the manufacturer is required to submit adverse event reports. Analysis by high pressure liquid chromatography indicated that the product was more than 99.6% pure tryptophan and the contaminate 0.01% of the total mass. The genetically engineered tryptophan was equal in purity, and thus considered substantially equivalent to that produced using natural bacteria. The incident is relevant for this article solely as an example of the failure of substantial equivalency let alone it's toxic affects. Wayne ( talk) 07:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
See thread here. Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the edits made by Ttguy because there seems to be a POV problem with the edit comments. If there are problems with the revert please discuss and we can work something out.
In this edit the text below was added:
A human feeding study found that a gene and it's promoter (a promoter activates the gene) that were inserted into Roundup Ready soy both transfered to the DNA of intestinal bacteria. Although no effects have been documented, as the gene produces a bacterial protein partly identical with a shrimp protein known to be allergenic it is possible that a person with a shrimp allergy eating the soy may get problems in the long term from their own gut bacteria producing the protein.
*Netherwood, et al, Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 22 Number 2 February 2004.
Looking through the paper cited (link) You will find that it states on the top of page 207 that the full-length gene was not detected in these bacteria, states on page 208 that this is "highly unlikely" to pose a risk to human health, and does not mention shrimp or allergic reactions at all. This attempt to insert original research using false sources is very serious and I'll report this at the OR noticebosrd. Tim Vickers ( talk) 15:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
As I'm not a biologist the fault is likely in my rewriting the summary to avoid plagiarism. The original summary in it's entirety read:
A human feeding study found that the gene which was articially inserted into RR-soy turned up in the DNA of gut bacteria.
This may have several problematic consequences: The bacteria are enabled to create the foreign protein. If it is toxic (like in the case of Bt-toxin) or allergenic (as in the case of RR-soy protein), they may continue producing the harmful substance for years after you have eaten just one meal of the GE food. For example, the RR-Soy gene produces a bacterial protein which is partly identical with an allergenic shrimp protein. Consequently a person with shrimp allergy may get lasting problems from eating RR soy.
The same research found that also the promoter, that is attached to the inserted gene, also was transferred to the intestinal bacteria.
*Netherwood, et al, Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 22 Number 2 February 2004.
Wayne ( talk) 16:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
. This just shows how ignorant PSRAST is. The whole point about digestive systems is that they break up DNA into small fragments. So to just blindly assert that the whole transgeen can be incorporated without citing any evidence is just wrong. Ttguy ( talk) 00:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)we find it justified to assume that whole transgene can be incorporated as well
Not too long ago, PMID 18989835 was referenced in the article. It was quietly removed by User:TimVickers using the edit summary "Add RSM" [3]. A while ago I suggested some ground rules for editing and edit summaries ( Talk:Genetically_modified_food#Ground_rules:_use_edit_summaries.2C_note_when_references_are_removed_and_why). I don't think this is an unreasonable request. I'd like an explanation as to why this review was deleted. II | ( t - c) 17:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
One of the major areas of controversy relating to GM foods is corporate control over the food supply, which this article ignores. I've added a start with a quickly Googled source, but the section needs expansion and better sources. Greenman ( talk) 11:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Greenman was referring to dependence on pesticides which, from what I've read, can only be applied to genetically-modified plants. Also, Monsanto was (is?) suing farmers for GMO pollen being blown into their non-GMO crop fields and producing tolerant plants. Farmers would feel obliged to grow GMO crops just to keep out of court. I'd consider that corporate control. 207.50.147.26 ( talk) 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a bad study ("It remains to be tested whether this DNA was still within the plant residues") but someone may have additional information.- Nutriveg ( talk) 16:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
These are news that worth following: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html -- Nutriveg ( talk) 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I find the map at least misleading. In Switzerland and Italy the cultivation of GM products is banned. In Italy there had been some test crops but no production. http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/gmo-free-regions/bans.html Since the majority of the sources cited by the maps are in Russian are quite difficult to evaluate.--Dia^ 22:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dia^ ( talk • contribs)
The Map is misleading because it is not nuanced. There should either be more categories, or to keep it simple, the map could show countries where GE food for human consumption (as opposed to feed for livestock) is legal, but hasn't been approved for commercialization. There are some countries where GE foods are legal, but they have not been commercialized or grown outside experimental settings. For example, India recently put a moratorium on approving the first GE food for humans, BT Brinjal [ [4]], so there is not currently any GE food that is grown. (BT cotton is approved and grown). The map should be taken down until more categories or nuanced reading of what is after all a "controversy" can be articulated. Infoeco ( talk) 16:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
One good source may be Clive James, ISAAA Brief 41-2009 which lists the 15 biotech mega-growing countries and lists their crops. Other than U.S. and China all other countries are growing maize, or soy for processing or livestock feed. Infoeco ( talk) 16:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This article implies there's strong opposition to GE crops being eaten, but most GE foods are very likely to be safe. Even those who are against GE foods usually only demand that the GE foods be labeled, much like the ingredients, and it's a negelectable miniority who actually wants a real ban on the crops. To avoid implying the that opposition, we need to mention that many of those critics really only want GE foods to be labeled. 173.183.79.81 ( talk) 07:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted some material from the lede because of several problems. For instance this section:
Several benefits have been widely accepted and are uncontested in the scientific literature. These include reductions in insecticide use on GE cotton,[1] enhanced biological diversity in GE cotton fields (compared to non-GE fields),[2] enhanced farmer income[3] and communal benefits,[4] increased yields for poor farmers[5] and improved health of farmworkers.[6] Although the use of herbicide tolerant crops remain controversial, because of the need to spray herbicides, it is clear that the use of these crops has promoted a shift to less toxic herbicides.[7]
Other than GM cotton, there is a huge amount of information that contests the benefits of GM crops. But even for cotton, which appears to be the most successful, to make such a broad statement and then offer one ref or a ref from Arizona is not acceptable. Gandydancer ( talk) 11:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't help but think that some of the paragraphs in this article are just too long to read comfortably (500 words seems excessive). They could probably be divided into manageable parts with minimal changes. Attys ( talk) 04:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The section currently states: The manufacturer's data is then assessed by an independent regulatory body, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This is apparently not correct as "data" implies scientific data and the sentence doesn't say that submitting the data is voluntary. While substantial equivalency is recognised world wide, it is handled in two different ways. The FDA substantial equivalency regulations run into tens of thousands of words but after reading them I feel they can probably be summed up as the following. In the United States, companies are self-regulating and, with the exception of GM foods that make a health claim, there is no requirement to seek approval before marketing a product the manufacturer deems substantially equivalent. The procedure is as follows. The manufacturer consults with the FDA to discuss the modification intended and to determine what tests are required. After developing the product, the manufacturer voluntarily submits a notification that states that the substantially equivalent product is "generally regarded as safe" (a GRAS exemption claim) to which the FDA replies with a "recognition of safety" GRAS approval accepting the manufacterers claim of substantial equivalency and safety. The notification from the manufacturer includes a statement that "the data and information that are the basis for [their] determination are available...to [the] FDA upon request," however, in practice, summaries of the manufacturer's safety and nutritional assessment data is assessed by an independent regulatory body, such as the Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Environmental Protection Agency depending on the type of product being developed. Compliance with these FDA "recommendations" is strictly voluntary but is almost universal, apparently as complying gives some legal immunity if something is found to be wrong with the product later but at no time does the regulatory body require the actual assessment data as it assumes the manufacturers claims are correct and that the product is GRAS. Have I missed something? In the European Union, companies must provide scientific evidence to support their claim of substantial equivalence (1997 Novel Food Regulation) in place of a safety and nutritional assessment before marketing. Considering that the substantial equivalence process is a major argument against GM foods I think both sytems should be mentioned. Comments?
Early in May 2012, the Radio Four programme Today reported on a conflict between a group called "Take the Flour Back" and Rothamsted_Experimental_Station, and mentioned a protest the former group were staging against the trial Rothamsted were planning for May 27 2012 to use genetically modified wheat to protect wheat against aphids. This is a big controversy, so this should have some mention in the article. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
A recent study by apparently reputable scientists has been released by Earth Open Source in UK. It's stance is firmly against GM foods. Some of its findings should perhaps be included in the article. -- Dandv( talk| contribs) 23:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Transgenics should be restricted to Biology, Chemistry, and the physics of containment, wherever possible. To that end, I have moved all of the sections under controversies in that article to this article. 142.59.48.238 ( talk) 19:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The article is titled "Genetically modified food controversies." This implies there is actually some controversy about genetically modified (or, more precisely transgenic) foods.
There is currently no legitimate science that would contraindicate the use of transgenic foods. In fact, there isn't even the slightest bit theory behind why it could hypothetically be harmful.
The article's title should read "Opposition to genetically modified food." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvttc ( talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The articles this discussion should concern:
The concept of genetically modifying organisms (especially crops/food) is a fairly controversial topic, so I would imagine that the articles get a fair amount of visitors. That said, I want to point out some issues to the articles that could be fixed. I've assigned numbers to each suggestion/issue, so that they can be discussed in separate sections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutsi ( talk • contribs)
hi read this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purebuzzin ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
If nothing else could we get an answer to this issue. The paragraphs that this concerns are these ones. AIRcorn (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi
IMO, any time we have subarticles, there should be a standard, brief paragraph in the "head" article (ideally taken from the lede of the subarticle and edited for concision if necessary) and a link to "main", and then keep an eye on those standard paragraphs for changes so that they stay short and plain. Ideally, no statistics would be in those standard paragraphs, otherwise when new data emerges we have to go back and update the data in many places which will inevitably lead to missing things and the overall suite falling out of sync within itself and with reality. I feel that we should try hard to avoid having long sections in different articles that cover the same matter. This was the state in which I found articles within this suite several months ago and most of my work has been consolidating overlapping material into clear, NPOV, well sourced discussions. Having a suite of articles covering various aspects of complex matter is indeed common in WIkipedia, but it is also commonly handed badly IMO. For instance in the suite of evolution articles, the main evolution article has a history section that is very long (7 paragraphs that fill my screen)... and there is an entire much longer subarticle on the history (about 10x longer). I glanced over the two texts and they don't tell the same story or even use the same refs.... this is not a happy thing for an encyclopedia and we should avoid doing this. This is for me a very important principle and I hope we can discuss it. Jytdog ( talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
(starting tabs over) Hi Aircorn... so far nobody has gone to the mat on the the self references. With respect to the objection raised in Issue 1, I wrote above, that if you read Wiki's self-reference policy, it is clear that these texts do not violate that policy. Nobody has responded to that so I assume nobody disagrees. My sense is that you and arc de ciel have objected on more stylistic grounds... but neither of you has gone to the mat on this. Is this indeed important to you?
But let's go back to the subject matter of this section. I have been trying to lay down a principle that sections for which we have big subarticles should just be very brief stubs - 1 paragraph taken from the lede of the subarticle, so that we don't end up with long, weedy descriptions of a given issue in different articles that extensively overlap with each other and with the main subarticle... which leads to inconsistencies and disorganization that you have described as a bane of wikipedia (and I heartily agree!). I thought we had kind of agreed on this... but you just recently expanded one of these stub sections with a bunch of material copied from a subarticle. So what gives? How shall we do this? I have been tempted to go into some of the articles you have created and apply this "stub principle" (for instance you have a section on "regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms" in your "regulation of genetic engineering" article that is my mind is waaaay too long and should be just a stub, as we have a whole article on "regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms") but i have held back from stubifying that section until (and only if) we reach consensus here. Jytdog ( talk) 18:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really watching the articles right now, but I just wanted to confirm that the objections I raised were indeed answered. It doesn't "feel good" from my own style perspective, but I don't know of any style guideline that rules it out. Also, I think that the general organization Jytdog has put in place is a good one; as he said, my concerns were only about the way they were disambiguated. It seems that people adding the same citations repeatedly is common in this group of articles, and this organization would probably help a lot. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 03:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Let's have a focused discussion on overall structure. This is part of the topic mentioned above but only part. Let's map it out. It would be really great to do this with some kind of software that allowed us to draw things, but I am ignorant of how to do that. So I will take a shot at this using words alone.
Here is my perspective
All this done with the principle of subarticles mentioned above... Jytdog ( talk) 14:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I like the smallification of text!! didn't know one could do that. Funny that you have "animal based" - there is no GM food from animals (yet). but in theory i see what you mean. But i disagree really really strongly that "GM crops" is main for plant-based GM food. GM crops is about agriculture. its not about food. why do you think gm crops is about food? more to say but that stopped me - one thing at a time! Jytdog ( talk) 03:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I understand that there are some ideas about Michael Taylor that circulate in the anti-GM community and are accepted as facts in that community. And the exact way that this text was stated, is the exact way it is stated on many anti-GM sites. That's fine, but Wiki needs to have a neutral standpoint and facts need to be sourced. I will try to find some sources, but if anybody else can find unbiased sources please add them. This is important because this is about a living person. Wiki has strict policies on statements about living people and statements not supported by reliable sources will need to be deleted.
Two sources have been cited so far:
Baden-Meyer, A. Obama puts GMO booster in charge of food safety. Organic Consumers Association July 22, 2009 Retrieved September 21, 2012 which is here
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18635.cfm
and
Obama Gives Former Food Lobbyist Michael Taylor a Second Chance at the FDA] CBS News January 15, 2010
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-44040110/obama-gives-former-food-lobbyist-michael-taylor-a-second-chance-at-the-fda/
I was hopeful about the CBS news piece but it is clearly editorial, not news. It is POV. Organic Consumers by definition is POV on this issue.
Nobody can dispute facts sourced from neutral references - let's use them!
Also, description needs to be neutral. At an agency like the FDA, no one person can be responsible for any policy especially not something as major as the way GM food would be regulated.
Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 11:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2236&context=bclr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Drisk%2520and%2520regulation%253A%2520u.s.%2520regulatory%2520policy%2520on%2520genetically%2520modified%2520food%2520and%2520agriculture%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CDEQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flawdigitalcommons.bc.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2236%2526context%253Dbclr%26ei%3DyA5dUMPYJNPq0QHOtIDgBw%26usg%3DAFQjCNFfxx7Tk1PLvv-a6B2mDC5_6kMosA#search=%22risk%20regulation%3A%20u.s.%20regulatory%20policy%20genetically%20modified%20food%20agriculture%22
(sorry for the long url) Will keep looking!
Jytdog (
talk)
23:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
so we have it handy here is the text that i believe violates the biographies policy - I de-formatted the references so they are visible
Critics in the US have protested in regards to the appointment of pro GM lobbyists to senior positions in the FDA.
Michael R. Taylor was appointed as a senior adviser to the FDA on food safety in 1991. Taylor is a former Monsanto lobbyist responsible for the ban on GMO labeling, is credited with being responsible for the implementation of "substantial equivalence" in place of food safety studies and known for his advocacy that resulted in the
Delaney clause that prohibited the inclusion of "any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man.. or animals" in processed foods being amended in 1996 to allow the inclusion of pesticides in GMOs. (ref name="Baden-Meyer" Baden-Meyer, A.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18635.cfm Obama puts GMO booster in charge of food safety Organic Consumers Association July 22, 2009 Retrieved September 21, 2012) (ref
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-44040110/obama-gives-former-food-lobbyist-michael-taylor-a-second-chance-at-the-fda/ CBS News January 15, 2010) Following his tenure at the FDA, Taylor became a vice-president of Monsanto and critics have called for a review of his work at the FDA citing a conflict of interest. On July 7, 2009, Mr Taylor returned to government as the "senior advisor" to the Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration for the Obama administration.(ref
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2009/ucm170842.htm)
the statements that are problematic are:
1) Taylor is ...responsible for the ban on GMO labeling
2) (Taylor)...is ...responsible for the implementation of "substantial equivalence" in place of food safety studies (actually says "credited with being responsible" but that is just weaselly)
3) (Taylor) ..is known for his advocacy that resulted in the
Delaney clause that prohibited the inclusion of "any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man.. or animals" in processed foods being amended in 1996 to allow the inclusion of pesticides in GMOs.
The following statement is probably supportable, but no citation is given:
4) Following his tenure at the FDA, Taylor became a vice-president of Monsanto and critics have called for a review of his work at the FDA citing a conflict of interest.
Jytdog (
talk)
01:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
"Mr. Taylor is popular among many food-safety and nutrition advocates, who call him intelligent and courageous." and later: "At a food-safety conference in Washington last year, Dr. Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, stood in the hallway and debated Mr. Taylor’s qualities with Russell Libby, the executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. “He’s extremely knowledgeable and public-health oriented,” Dr. Jacobson said in a later interview." Not everybody views this guy as bad. Jytdog ( talk) 02:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, so I spent most of today working on Taylor's wiki article. Michael R. Taylor I found sources that I believe are balanced. Please have a look there and tell me what you think! Jytdog ( talk) 22:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS.
Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov;50(11):4221-31.
doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005.
Epub 2012 Sep 19.
Abstract
The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1ppb in water), were studied 2years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3-2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.
PMID
22999595
[PubMed - in process]
Full Free Text:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf
-- Ocdnctx ( talk) 19:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I just went through the article, and I made various comments which can be found here on a user subpage:
User:Jjjjjjjjjj/genetically_modified_food_controversies
Each comment is prefixed word the word "WikiComment".
Comments are stemming in part from the current debate going on in California with respect to Proposition 37:
Some comments include proposed revisions, but others are questions or reports on data or explorations.
Please feel free to take a look.
Responses could be written on the user subpage and/or here. Here may be better so that this can be the main page for any dialog.
Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 05:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thanks for your comments! addressed CA referendum in the lede -- good suggestion. will address others later! thanks again! Jytdog ( talk) 12:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
"The first thing that leaps to my mind is why has nothing emerged from epidemiological studies in the countries where so much GM has been in the food chain for so long? If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren’t the North Americans dropping like flies?! - Prof Mark Tester, Research Professor, Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, University of Adelaide
I received a response from Mark Tester (see blockquote above) -- and he wrote about epidemiological studies. I've summarized what he wrote at this user page:
User:Jjjjjjjjjj/genetically_modified_food_controversies_epidemiological_studies
Perhaps this could later be integrated into the article.
Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 22:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Alright, changes have now gone through to the article and I also made some comments at User:Jjjjjjjjjj/genetically_modified_food_controversies
Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 08:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
One other thing: one can see that traffic to this article page went from 5,462 in August 2012, to 24,187 in September 2012, and already 27,718 for October 2012:
this is probably coming from the Proposition 37 debate.
Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 06:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Surveys indicate that a majority of Americans support mandatory labeling. (However, such surveys often do not specify the effect on food prices.)
Hi on the last statement from Nature. That was not a "peer reviewed paper", it was an opinion piece, and was roundly criticized in subsequent opinion pieces after it was published. This is the same sloppiness that I have found over and over in the anti-GM literature. That opinion piece is actually discussed in the Controversies article as is the criticism of it. That quote from Philip Angell is from the "Harvest of Fear" piece and the anti-GM community loves those quotes - one sees them all the time. They seem to be a perfect expression of corporate callousness. With respect to your comments about the FDA, I am sorry that you do not understand the regulatory process. I have tried to make sure the regulatory process is well explained in the regulation article; I will go back and review to make sure it is indeed clear. Briefly, in the US, the burden is on the sponsor of a new product to provide data and reasoning to the FDA that new products comply with the law - this is what the statement from the FDA expresses. It is the FDA's role to review that data and reasoning and judge -- in its sole judgement - whether the data and reasoning are sufficient to ensure that new product does comply with the law -- this is the meaning of the statement from Angell. The roles are clear - there is no ducking of responsibility. The exact same framework is in place throughout the US regulatory system. For instance with new drugs, the burden is on the company to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars it takes to conduct clinical trials - not on the government. The general perspective is that It would be a wasteful use of taxpayer money for the government to test new products that private companies will profit from, if the new products work during the testing, and will lose their shirt on, if the product fails during testing. The studies are risky -- many products fail during testing and are never even brought to regulators for final approval. I would certainly object if taxpayer dollars went to test new products instead of being used to build roads etc. Again -- saying it clearly and briefly -- in the US, companies pay for studies; regulators review those studies. Back to the larger topic: you still have not told me if you have read and thought about the documents produced by the OECD and FAO and the parallel documents produced in the US, to provide a regulatory framework. As I mentioned above, it seems to me that you have not. I don't understand how can criticize something so strongly that you do not understand. (but this is the climate-change-denier paradigm -- you don't agree with consequences, so you simply ignore or dismiss the data and information that leads to those consequences) Your assumption -- like the assumptions in the Nature opinion piece you cited -- appear to be that the regulators are in the pocket of the companies -- in other words, that they are corrupt. I view the regulatory community as working hard and in good faith to protect the public, and am very impressed with the documents they have produced, which frankly and clearly acknowledge the risks of GMOs (it is their job to see these risks clearly) and the practical limitations of time, money, scientific knowledge, and technology. I can't say anything other "Gee you really should educate yourself before you keep putting opinions out there." There I said it. I am happy to keep responding here but I wish you would do your own homework and that you would be more careful and thorough in your thinking. Jytdog ( talk) 13:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
An editor labelled the following statement, under the anti-labelling section, with citation needed and clarification needed templates. Consumers who want to buy non-GE food already have an option: to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot be produced with GE ingredients., using the edit summary "in the US this is not true". I've removed the fact tag, as that by definition is what certified organic is (I've linked to the article) - please add other discussions and reasons for the tags here. I understand that in the US accidental contamination is common due to the widespread use of GM crops, and that the 95% standard allows 5% of an organically-labelled product to be not organic (although still by definition approved). Please explain further how this is not true in the US. Greenman ( talk) 12:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Under the section "Health risks of consuming GM food" it does state that there is broad and regulatory consensus that GM food on the market is safe to eat but such an important conclusion by the scientific community should be mentioned in lede. Similar to how the global warming controversy page clearly states in its lede about the scientific consensus on global warming. Anyone else agree? Any objections to why it shouldn't be? BlackHades ( talk) 22:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Since the end of July the article has grown from 45 kB "readable prose size" to over 120 kB (19353 words) "readable prose size" almost tripling in size. While I agree that consolidation of the various articles needed to be done, it might be a good idea to look at reducing the size of this page. To my mind the best way to split would be to create articles devoted to Environmental and Health issues and summarise them here. So I propose the creation of Environmental concerns with genetic modification and Health concerns with genetic modification and splitting information from here to there. There is a risk that they could become WP:POV forks, but if handled correctly it should be no worse than this article is now (which is really a just a POV fork from Genetically modified food). AIRcorn (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the first priority for the article would be to get the lead down to a smaller size. Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 07:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
OK I just went through and did a lot of trimming. Trying to make everybody happy here. Jytdog ( talk) 02:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
lead is NOT a summary of the main body of text and so fails WP:LEAD, please address the concerns set out in the guidelines before removing the banner. Semitransgenic talk. 15:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I made a small rewording of the addition, since it was a sentence fragment.
Besides that, I don't think the word "enough" should be included, since it implies that there are risks above those associated with non-GM food. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 04:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems you're the one that needs to chill. How exactly does the statement violate NPOV? Who says the world will burn down? I'm perfectly fine with adding information that is contra-GMOs. I welcome input in that regard. Others have stated no objection. And you're not being very clear why it shouldn't be done. Specifically what is the issue you're having? NPOV? Length? Split? Are you trying to say it shouldn't be there if it's not getting split? You're being extremely vague and not clear what exactly you're objecting to. BlackHades ( talk) 01:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Pretty happy with the sentences as written. Just a few comments. I would remove nonetheless, it sounds weaselly and is not really needed. Also I am not so sure there is broad regulatory consensus. In America, Australia and most countries that actively grow the crops there would be, but Europe in particular does not seem to have it. You can't really have broad regulatory consensus when a large number of countries have moratoriums on restrictions on the use of GMOs. AIRcorn (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified food, genetically modified crops used to produce food and other goods, and other uses of genetically modified organisms in food production. The dispute involves consumers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified (GM) food are: risk of harm from GM food, whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the effect of GM crops on the environment, and GM crops' context as part of the industrial agriculture system.
There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food. Supporters of food derived from GMOs hold that food is as safe as other foods and that labels send a message to consumers that GM food is somehow dangerous. They trust that regulators and the regulatory process are sufficiently objective and rigorous, and that risks of contamination of the non-GM food supply and of the environment can be managed. They trust that there is sufficient law and regulation to maintain competition in the market for seeds, believe that GM technology is key to feeding a growing world population, and view GM technology as a continuation of the manipulation of plants that humans have conducted for millennia. Advocacy groups such as Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund have concerns that risks of GM food have not been adequately identified and managed, and have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities. Opponents of food derived from GMOs are concerned about the safety of the food itself and wish it banned, or at least labeled. They have concerns about the objectivity of regulators and rigor of the regulatory process, about contamination of the non-GM food supply, about effects of GMOs on the environment, about industrial agriculture in general, and about the consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs, especially in the developing world. Some are concerned that GM technology tampers too deeply with nature. |
” |
Semitransgenic, with regards to [6], could you please address the actual reasons that I gave for my edit? Arc de Ciel ( talk) 03:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
OK there is a proposal to split the article.
Below are the sections. Let's talk about what sections would go where if we were to split.
1 Public perception
2 Industrial agriculture
3 Labeling
4 Objectivity of regulatory bodies
5 Health risks of consuming GM food
6 Environmental risks and benefits
7 World Hunger
8 Agricultural economics
9 Intellectual property and market dynamics
10 Litigation in the US
11 India
12 Availability of GM seed for testing
13 Biological process
14 Religious issues
15 Controversial cases
15.1 Pusztai affair (health)
15.2 Lövei study on effect of Bt on non-target organisms
15.3 Aris study on human exposure to pesticides produced in GM foods
15.4 Netherwood study on gene transfer from food to humans
15.5 Séralini studies and responses
15.6 Protests
OK so here is a proposal: health is blue; environment is green; economic is red; mix is brown; don't know what to do with it, is black
1 Public perception (grab bag, includes health, environment, and economics)
2 Industrial agriculture (grab bag)
3 Labeling (really about health, I think, but also about regulatory)
4 Objectivity of regulatory bodies
5 Health risks of consuming GM food (health)
6 Environmental risks and benefits (enviromment)
7 World Hunger
8 Agricultural economics
9 Intellectual property and market dynamics
10 Litigation in the US
11 India
12 Availability of GM seed for testing
13 Biological process
14 Religious issues
15 Controversial cases
15.1 Pusztai affair (health)
15.2 Lövei study on effect of Bt on non-target organisms (environment)
15.3 Aris study on human exposure to pesticides produced in GM foods
15.4 Netherwood study on gene transfer from food to humans (health)
15.5 Séralini studies and responses (health)
15.6 Protests (this is about people attacking test fields where GM crops are grown which I image is a grab bag of reasons)
Looking at it, I don't think my idea of a pure split will work - there are too many mixed and unknown things that need a general article. I guess this is why aircorn (I think it was) proposed just splitting out health and environment and leaving brief discussions here. that would go a long way to cutting down the size, I guess... I still dread having discussions of controversial issues in more than one place, though. Jytdog ( talk) 22:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
Have you seen
this?
Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603. These are the conclusions of separate and independent assessments carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and six EU Member States...
Might be a good idea to tweak some of our content accordingly. bobrayner ( talk) 20:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! It is one of the many regulatory reports cited in the seralini sectin -- i think there were something 8 differnet regulatory agencies that found the study not credible.20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
i don't know how to edit an article, so could someone please add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_for_Social_Responsibility as one of the groups against GMOs? It seems pretty stilted to have two environmental groups, one of which is seen by most people as radical, but not include a huge group of physicians. Sorry if i did this wrong. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.247.31 ( talk) 17:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It's untrue that no spiritual system has designated GMOs as unaccecptable. some are forums, but not all spirutual groups have centralized voices.
Rastafari often talk against it. 1 2 3 4 so GMO is definately not Ital
Nation of Islam (NOI) teach that anything grafted from the original is "devil" that being the case, GMO would definately be banned. The above goes for the Nation of Gods and Earths.
Hebrew israelites also ban GMO's according to their official site 1 2
I'm sure I could find others, but this was just with a quick google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapblack ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC) vap ( talk) 22:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/european-union-urges-testing-of-us-wheat-imports-for-unapproved-strain/2013/05/31/eaaefcdc-c9fc-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_story.html Not sure how to incorporate this info in the page - it says Japan and South Korea have suspended wheat inports from the US following a discovery of an unapproved strain of wheat growing in Oregon, and the EU is advising members to test shipments. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 12:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)