![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
From inclusion/replacement of the RfC language of Proposal 1 ( here here) all the refs appear twice. Specifically 15-34 are identical to 137-156. Unfortunately, it appears none of the references were named. The only way I know to get out the redundancy is to give names to all 20 references and then refer back to them in the second instantiation. That is going to be a lot of work to do by hand, requiring 20 ref names to be made and 20 changes to the second instantiation. Are there any tools to simplify the task? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 11:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Same problem here: Talk:Genetically_modified_food#citation_redundancy. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 11:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I think all the duplicated citations are now consolidated. It would have been somewhat less work if the ref tags were added before the the citations were duplicated. Also a several of the citations were extremely long which makes the raw wiki text difficult to read and overwhelms the paragraphs in which they are inserted. I have taken the liberty of segregating these refs using list defined references. Boghog ( talk) 00:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies starts with an evaluation of whether or not the food is substantially equivalent to non-genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption.[8][9][10][11] No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food.[12][13][14] There is a scientific consensus[15][16][17][18] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[19][20][21][22][23] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[24][25][26] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[27][28][29][30] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[31][32][33][34]
@ Lfstevens: Hi. Your latest edits have introduced a number of citation errors. It also appears that you have re-duplicated some citations that I worked hard at removing. I would appreciate if you would recheck your edits and also consolidate the duplicated citations. Thanks. Boghog ( talk) 07:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
With this edit by Kingofaces43 there is strong POV change to the article. Please do not make changes like this to the lede without first gaining consensus. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to make three points:
As a general comment, I don't think redundancy is as much of an issue as neutrality here. The effect of the second and third paragraphs, in their current form, is to cast doubt on the consensus language and minimize its importance. For instance, "There is concern among the public about safety" is given a prominent place, and then the subject changes without further comment, with the full context not being given until the middle of paragraph four. A reader who isn't sufficiently careful could easily interpret this structure as directly contradicting itself, or even see only what they want to see, and neither of those should be possible. I think that keeping this type of language in the article (and especially in the lead) would be against the spirit of the RfC. Sunrise ( talk) 06:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
FYI: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Articles_on_controversial_topics. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 02:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
About [1] [2]. Posted here. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Scientists tend to be more concerned about the potential for genetically modified organisms to cause ecological damage than about food effects on healthwas added in this without a source. This statement was deleted not to purge but because the source supplied was inadequate to support this conclusion. There is in fact some support for this statement [1] however I have been unable to identify a better source. The problem is that is difficult to find a single expert that is qualified to discuss both food and environmental safety and to weigh the relative risks.
References
Most scientists agree: The main safety issues of genetically engineered crops involve not people but the environment
However, the lack of observed negative effects [of transgenic crops] so far does not mean they cannot occur, and scientists agree that our understanding of ecological and food safety processes is incomplete.
@ Driftwoodzebulin: and @ Alexbrn: Your edits are in the two diffs at the top of this discussion, so you have a right to know that your edits have been mentioned. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
"Scientists tend to be more concerned about the potential for genetically modified organisms to cause ecological damage than about food effects on health"seems justified - it wasn't supported by its citation, which was about specific concerns of specific scientists about AquaAdvantage salmon, not about the concerns of scientists in general about GMOs in general. The statement may in fact be true, but that needs to be established, and to what degree. -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods.Then we have The Public Health Association of Australia, which isn't a medical association, as well as the "Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment" and the "Irish Doctors' Environmental Association." Not exactly much to justify an section called "Views of Medical Associations." -- tronvillain ( talk) 15:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
It's fine to talk about the individual topics of human health and the environment. Generalities about what "scientists tend" to think isn't helpful and probably isn't defensible either, much less sourceable. Lfstevens ( talk) 18:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I have attempted to change the description of Mark Lynas in this article to ‘ author and journalist’ , as a more neutral description than ‘a famous former anti-GMO activist. Alexbrn reverted saying that “Per BLP nothing wrong with descriving(sic) people how they style themselves if it's not contentious ("I, too, was once in that activist camp"). In fact, Lynas’ self-styling as a prominent anti-GM activist is contentious. He was involved at some level, but was in no way famous for anti-GM activism, focusing more on anti-global-warming. The back and forth mentioned in this Discover blog entry shows the issue, as does this statement by prominent early anti-GM activists saying that Lynas has misrepresented his role in the movement. 'Author and journalist' better describes his current work than 'former activst'. Dialectric ( talk) 16:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
"The antibiotic genes used in genetic engineering are naturally found in many pathogens, commonly used during animal husbandry and not widely prescribed."
I don't think "antibiotic genes" can be prescribed.
Does this sentence actually mean -
"The antibiotics produced by genes used in genetic engineering are naturally found in many pathogens, commonly used during animal husbandry and not widely prescribed to humans."
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
14:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC).
I believe that the following material should be deleted from the Health section:
2014 critical review of histopathology studies on rats (eating approved widely-eaten GM crops) states significant flaws, inadequacies and a lack of transparency in methodology and results. Published studies could be found for only 19% of these widely-eaten crops. Most of reviewed studies were performed after the approval of crop. Necessity of long-term animal feeding studies and thorough histopathological investigations has been ascertained. [1]
Aside from being in bad need of a copyedit for proper English language usage, it seems to me that it is a cherry-picked study, selected to contradict the community consensus in the recent RfC. As such, it is very much WP:UNDUE. An edit summary says that Domingo (2016) cites this study – and yet, Domingo's overall conclusions are opposite to this study's conclusions. During the RfC, the community carefully examined the issue of dissenting sources that claim adverse health effects of GM crops, and there was a clear consensus that we should go with the scientific consensus as established in the most recent secondary sources. As such, this material does not belong here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
"Interestingly, among the 21 studies detected in their search, 14 were general health assessments of the GM crop on rat health, with most of these studies having been performed after the crop had been approved for human and/or animal consumption. Half of these were published at least nine years after approval.Most studies reviewed by Zdziarski et al. (2014) detected a lack of a unified approach and transparency in their methodology and results, making impossible to properly review or repeat these studies. "
Cathry ( talk) 13:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Note, that Domingo 2016 review about last five years studies and reviews. Earlier studies were reviewed by Domingo in 2011 and 2007. And Zdziarski review is about all rat/most popular gm crops studies till 2014. Cathry ( talk) 13:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Also from Domingo
Kramkowska et al. (2013) indicated that examples arguing for the justified character of genetic modifications, and cases proving that their use can be dangerous, were innumerable.
What is cherry-picking - to reduce concerns from Domingo review to only "long-term studies are needed". Cathry ( talk) 13:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
" to contradict the community consensus in the recent RfC." It seems scientific sources (both used in article and not) contradict the community consensus. Cathry ( talk) 13:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
75.171.254.68 ( talk) 12:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I just heard another report, that is quite interesting, and also well worth adding to this page: Organic Food Fights Back Against 'Non-GMO' Rival. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops (29 Oct 2016), The New York Times. Regards, Ijon Tichy ( talk) 17:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The external links section has been removed since was it was become way too long (i.e., turning into a WP:LINKFARM). These links have been restored several times over the objections of other editors. Most of the links in question fail WP:ELNO, namely Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. There are various view points expressed in these external links and these view points are already summarized in a better way in the article. They are redundant and hence I have removed them. Boghog ( talk) 09:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
It looks like there is a slow edit war by a single editor to keep readding the links, being reverted by multiple other editors. Doing this goes against the spirit, albeit not the letter, of the 1RR restriction, so please do not add them back without consensus here on the talk page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Genetically modified food controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
there's this section in the article:
Chemical use
Birth defects in Hawaii caused a controversy, and public outcry of people concerned over heavy pesticide usage. Hawaii uses ten times the amount of pesticides compared to the rest of the U.S. [1]
References
92.196.53.191 ( talk) 00:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Reference 208: Tang G, Hu Y, Yin SA, Wang Y, Dallal GE, Grusak MA, Russell RM (September 2012). "β-Carotene in Golden Rice is as good as β-carotene in oil at providing vitamin A to children". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 96 (3): 658–64. doi:10.3945/ajcn.111.030775. PMC 3417220Freely accessible. PMID 22854406.
Was retracted. The retraction states that:
1. The authors are unable to provide sufficient evidence that the study had been reviewed and approved by a local ethics committee in China in a manner fully consistent with NIH guidelines. Furthermore, the engaged institutions in China did not have US Federal Wide Assurances and had not registered their Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Review Committee).
2. The authors are unable to substantiate through documentary evidence that all parents or children involved in the study were provided with the full consent form for the study.
3. Specific eligibility issues were identified in regard to 2 subjects in the study.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:78bc:7800:c9e2:f5cb:e29a:3591 ( talk • contribs) 05:00, February 13, 2017 (UTC)
In all I thought this article was very well written. The writing was very easy to understand, and I didn't feel as though there was any bias in the writing of the articles. Especially at the beginning of the article I was impressed with how many sources there were to back up some claims, and from the sources that I looked at, they all seemed to be from very reliable sources. Another thing that I found very helpful was the thoroughness of the information. It covered all the important issues such as health and the environment, went into great detail. Where I thought here could be more information was in the "Public Perception" area. It contains a very brief paragraph about the history, and I believe that the history GM foods could use it's own sections and be elaborated more thoroughly. It also is extremely brief on explaining the view point of certain social groups. It feels very rushed, and I believe there is more information for all groups to be added. Then, the article could include subheadings for these certain sections. In all the article felt very thorough and organized. RonniL ( talk) 04:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is incredibly comprehensive, but is consequently very dense. Because of this, it sometimes wavers on the border of being too detail heavy, in my opinion, and therefore difficult to digest. It is certainly a very thorough, and remarkably objective, perspective on the topic, however. Many primary sources are referenced, and frequently include prominent and/or reputable organizations and individuals such as Monsanto, Greenpeace, and the journal, "Scientific American." Making use of these specific authorities lends credibility to the text. There are a plethora of sources cited, and they are indicated very clearly both in the body of the text and in the References section at the end of the piece. The article is well divided into sections such as law, health, and the environment, but again, I feel that perhaps the subdivisions become too intricate and branched. It seems that if an individual were truly seeking to find a piece of information at the level of detail that this article reaches, they would have a difficult time finding it because there are just so many specifics to sort through. This article also includes many case studies and reviews, which are frequently named but not often given much context. Overall, the writing addresses all key points in a calculated, balanced fashion, and is not lacking in holistic depth. However, I sometimes feel it becomes overbearing and weighty, bogged down by minute details and brief references. Mckenth ( talk) 03:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
In the second paragraph under the Gene Flow subheading there was the claim: 'In most countries environmental studies are required before approval of a GMO for commercial purposes, and a monitoring plan must be presented to identify unanticipated gene flow effects.', but this statement was made without any sources or further details about the extent of the studies. Is there a chance something like this could help the article? : http://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/gmo/acgm/ecrisk.htm
GrimJimTim ( talk) 23:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
At first glance, this article seems to be pretty good. However, upon further investigation, one sees that this article is - in reality - actually pretty good I guess.
I first examined the neutrality of this article. While it does seem that this article supports more heavily the side of the argument that claims that GMO's are just as adverse to health as conventional food, I feel that this is not the work of a biased editor - rather it seems that the weight of evidence, shifted more towards this viewpoint, is the cause of this perceived bias.
Backing up all of this evidence are the numerous citations. I feel that the citations are the strength of this article - there's a ton of them; enough for multiple citations per sentence. If the reader feels that a section of this article is biased, the reader can very easily find a number of articles from multiple different sources that support the idea in question.
Lazowsjt7759 ( talk) 03:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on Genetically modified food controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/news/New-Language-Found-Hidden-in-India/story.xhtml?story_id=02100000XZPX{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hpj.com/archives/2010/aug10/aug2/0716SeedMACOAug2sr.cfmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Environmental groups such as [[Friends of the Earth]],<ref>{{cite web |title=Genetic engineering |publisher=Friends of the Earth |url=http://www.foe.org/projects/food-and-technology/genetic-engineering}}</ref> include genetic engineering in general as an environmental and political concern. Other groups such as GMWatch and [[The Institute of Science in Society]] concentrate mostly or solely on opposing genetically modified crops.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GE-agriculture.php |title=GE-Agriculture |publisher=The Institute of Science in Society}}</ref><ref name=GMWatch>{{cite web |url=http://www.gmwatch.org/about |title=About GMWatch |publisher=GMWatch}}</ref>
This is entirely primary sourced. There's no evidence that GMWatch or the "Institute of Science in Society" (a tiny vanity project) are of any significance or importance. The section should either be removed, or supported by sources that meet the standard tests of reliability and independence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on Genetically modified food controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
While this and similar articles state the scientific consensus is that GMO foods pose no greater risk to humans than non-GMO foods, is there a consensus for environmental concerns? I believe there is, so I’m surprised not to see it here. -- That man from Nantucket ( talk) 23:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genetically modified food controversies has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I plan to edit in a section over golden rice controversy in China.
A 2012 study in China over the genetically modified grain –Golden Rice- gained much public awareness over the fact that US researchers were being accused of feeding the children the grain without consulting their parents (). The researchers not fully knowing the full effects of how Golden Rice decided to use the children as their test subjects. The next year an institute of American researchers in Tufts University concluded that these researchers broke ethical rules during their study of Golden Rice in China. [1] Cesar.Salade ( talk) 06:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
What hasn't been mentioned on the biodiversity section is that the food production increase on the agricultural fields also means that less land needs to be put into cultivation (with GM crops you can attain the amount of food necessary to sustain the population with less agricultural land), so in theory free up space for nature to go about its business undisturbed (less rainforest for instance may need to be cut down for soy production, ...). As such, it can be argued that this way, it actually protects a lot of biodiversity from being eradicated due to agricultural activity.
Can someone mention this in the section. I can't find any sources for this (other than this [1], so can't add it myself. Genetics4good ( talk) 09:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, can someone remove the "greenhouse gas emissions" word in the line "Potential effects include gene flow, pesticide resistance and greenhouse gas emissions." on this article ? Greenhouse gas reductions aren't mentioned here since they are not controversial, but the word is still mentioned here, which is confusing. Genetics4good ( talk) 09:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Genetically modified food controversies has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Chemical Use, under Pesticides, after second footnote in 3rd sentence 'That said, some still remains' .... should include the word disagreement or similar word, 71.55.191.153 ( talk) 14:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
GMO is still a political hot potato, and this article appears to use evidence biased towards the promotion of GMO.
Take, for instance the data source used regarding a shift in EU consumer perceptions - https://gmoinfo.eu/uk/files/510-briefing-eurobarometer-19june-2019-.pdf
This material is fully funded by EuropaBio. It is imperative that any Encyclopedia article does not take sides in a debate; and, while there may be some justification that, for scientists within the field of GM, there is a consensus that GMO foods can be as safe as non GMO, this article tends towards using far more politicised claims.
Any consumer who actually lives in the EU will tell you that, given the choice between labelled GMO food and unlabelled GMO food - they will go for labelled. Secondly, given the choice, a majority of consumers will choose against it.
The survey cited bases it’s data on using open questions about food, rather than mentioning GMO as a focus. As there has been little press or media coverage regarding any changes in status of GM food availability (and corresponding legislation), it is not surprising that the survey shows a decrease in concern about GMO ingredients. The survey does nothing to support its premise, except in the context of ‘active need for concern’. Were, for instance.
In the end, this article is currently a thinly veiled attempt by the GM lobby to argue the GM case. I would edit, but it is not my field. 20040302 ( talk) 10:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I can't (yet) edit this semi-protected page, so I was wondering if someone might be kind enough to look at this sentence toward the end of the "Public Perception" section before "Reviews and Polls". "Food writer Michael Pollan does not oppose eating genetically modified foods, but supports mandatory labeling of GM foods and has criticized the pesticide-heavy monoculture farming enabled by certain GM crops, such as glyphosate-tolerant ("Roundup-ready") corn and soybeans." My problem is the phrase "...pesticide-heavy monoculture farming..." If that is what Mr. Pollan said in the reference (I can't access that either), then it seems that phrase should be in quotes. If he didn't actually use that phrase, then it doesn't seem very unbiased to me.
I realize this article is about the controversies, but I believe this kind of wording doesn't really fit the WP:IMPARTIAL standard. But as a new editor, I'd love to hear other thoughts. Thanks! SadderButWiser ( talk) 22:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genetically modified food controversies has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference to: "with approximately 100 universities that allowed for university scientists to conduct research on their GM products with no oversight.[128]" Cited link has broken hyperlink to "with approximately 100 universities." This citations is used by a number of other cites, all lead to same broken cite. Kstreete ( talk) 03:12, 11 January 2021 (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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
From inclusion/replacement of the RfC language of Proposal 1 ( here here) all the refs appear twice. Specifically 15-34 are identical to 137-156. Unfortunately, it appears none of the references were named. The only way I know to get out the redundancy is to give names to all 20 references and then refer back to them in the second instantiation. That is going to be a lot of work to do by hand, requiring 20 ref names to be made and 20 changes to the second instantiation. Are there any tools to simplify the task? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 11:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Same problem here: Talk:Genetically_modified_food#citation_redundancy. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 11:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I think all the duplicated citations are now consolidated. It would have been somewhat less work if the ref tags were added before the the citations were duplicated. Also a several of the citations were extremely long which makes the raw wiki text difficult to read and overwhelms the paragraphs in which they are inserted. I have taken the liberty of segregating these refs using list defined references. Boghog ( talk) 00:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies starts with an evaluation of whether or not the food is substantially equivalent to non-genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption.[8][9][10][11] No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food.[12][13][14] There is a scientific consensus[15][16][17][18] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[19][20][21][22][23] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[24][25][26] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[27][28][29][30] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[31][32][33][34]
@ Lfstevens: Hi. Your latest edits have introduced a number of citation errors. It also appears that you have re-duplicated some citations that I worked hard at removing. I would appreciate if you would recheck your edits and also consolidate the duplicated citations. Thanks. Boghog ( talk) 07:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
With this edit by Kingofaces43 there is strong POV change to the article. Please do not make changes like this to the lede without first gaining consensus. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to make three points:
As a general comment, I don't think redundancy is as much of an issue as neutrality here. The effect of the second and third paragraphs, in their current form, is to cast doubt on the consensus language and minimize its importance. For instance, "There is concern among the public about safety" is given a prominent place, and then the subject changes without further comment, with the full context not being given until the middle of paragraph four. A reader who isn't sufficiently careful could easily interpret this structure as directly contradicting itself, or even see only what they want to see, and neither of those should be possible. I think that keeping this type of language in the article (and especially in the lead) would be against the spirit of the RfC. Sunrise ( talk) 06:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
FYI: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Articles_on_controversial_topics. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 02:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
About [1] [2]. Posted here. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Scientists tend to be more concerned about the potential for genetically modified organisms to cause ecological damage than about food effects on healthwas added in this without a source. This statement was deleted not to purge but because the source supplied was inadequate to support this conclusion. There is in fact some support for this statement [1] however I have been unable to identify a better source. The problem is that is difficult to find a single expert that is qualified to discuss both food and environmental safety and to weigh the relative risks.
References
Most scientists agree: The main safety issues of genetically engineered crops involve not people but the environment
However, the lack of observed negative effects [of transgenic crops] so far does not mean they cannot occur, and scientists agree that our understanding of ecological and food safety processes is incomplete.
@ Driftwoodzebulin: and @ Alexbrn: Your edits are in the two diffs at the top of this discussion, so you have a right to know that your edits have been mentioned. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
"Scientists tend to be more concerned about the potential for genetically modified organisms to cause ecological damage than about food effects on health"seems justified - it wasn't supported by its citation, which was about specific concerns of specific scientists about AquaAdvantage salmon, not about the concerns of scientists in general about GMOs in general. The statement may in fact be true, but that needs to be established, and to what degree. -- tronvillain ( talk) 22:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods.Then we have The Public Health Association of Australia, which isn't a medical association, as well as the "Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment" and the "Irish Doctors' Environmental Association." Not exactly much to justify an section called "Views of Medical Associations." -- tronvillain ( talk) 15:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
It's fine to talk about the individual topics of human health and the environment. Generalities about what "scientists tend" to think isn't helpful and probably isn't defensible either, much less sourceable. Lfstevens ( talk) 18:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I have attempted to change the description of Mark Lynas in this article to ‘ author and journalist’ , as a more neutral description than ‘a famous former anti-GMO activist. Alexbrn reverted saying that “Per BLP nothing wrong with descriving(sic) people how they style themselves if it's not contentious ("I, too, was once in that activist camp"). In fact, Lynas’ self-styling as a prominent anti-GM activist is contentious. He was involved at some level, but was in no way famous for anti-GM activism, focusing more on anti-global-warming. The back and forth mentioned in this Discover blog entry shows the issue, as does this statement by prominent early anti-GM activists saying that Lynas has misrepresented his role in the movement. 'Author and journalist' better describes his current work than 'former activst'. Dialectric ( talk) 16:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
"The antibiotic genes used in genetic engineering are naturally found in many pathogens, commonly used during animal husbandry and not widely prescribed."
I don't think "antibiotic genes" can be prescribed.
Does this sentence actually mean -
"The antibiotics produced by genes used in genetic engineering are naturally found in many pathogens, commonly used during animal husbandry and not widely prescribed to humans."
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
14:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC).
I believe that the following material should be deleted from the Health section:
2014 critical review of histopathology studies on rats (eating approved widely-eaten GM crops) states significant flaws, inadequacies and a lack of transparency in methodology and results. Published studies could be found for only 19% of these widely-eaten crops. Most of reviewed studies were performed after the approval of crop. Necessity of long-term animal feeding studies and thorough histopathological investigations has been ascertained. [1]
Aside from being in bad need of a copyedit for proper English language usage, it seems to me that it is a cherry-picked study, selected to contradict the community consensus in the recent RfC. As such, it is very much WP:UNDUE. An edit summary says that Domingo (2016) cites this study – and yet, Domingo's overall conclusions are opposite to this study's conclusions. During the RfC, the community carefully examined the issue of dissenting sources that claim adverse health effects of GM crops, and there was a clear consensus that we should go with the scientific consensus as established in the most recent secondary sources. As such, this material does not belong here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
"Interestingly, among the 21 studies detected in their search, 14 were general health assessments of the GM crop on rat health, with most of these studies having been performed after the crop had been approved for human and/or animal consumption. Half of these were published at least nine years after approval.Most studies reviewed by Zdziarski et al. (2014) detected a lack of a unified approach and transparency in their methodology and results, making impossible to properly review or repeat these studies. "
Cathry ( talk) 13:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Note, that Domingo 2016 review about last five years studies and reviews. Earlier studies were reviewed by Domingo in 2011 and 2007. And Zdziarski review is about all rat/most popular gm crops studies till 2014. Cathry ( talk) 13:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Also from Domingo
Kramkowska et al. (2013) indicated that examples arguing for the justified character of genetic modifications, and cases proving that their use can be dangerous, were innumerable.
What is cherry-picking - to reduce concerns from Domingo review to only "long-term studies are needed". Cathry ( talk) 13:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
" to contradict the community consensus in the recent RfC." It seems scientific sources (both used in article and not) contradict the community consensus. Cathry ( talk) 13:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
75.171.254.68 ( talk) 12:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I just heard another report, that is quite interesting, and also well worth adding to this page: Organic Food Fights Back Against 'Non-GMO' Rival. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops (29 Oct 2016), The New York Times. Regards, Ijon Tichy ( talk) 17:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The external links section has been removed since was it was become way too long (i.e., turning into a WP:LINKFARM). These links have been restored several times over the objections of other editors. Most of the links in question fail WP:ELNO, namely Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. There are various view points expressed in these external links and these view points are already summarized in a better way in the article. They are redundant and hence I have removed them. Boghog ( talk) 09:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
It looks like there is a slow edit war by a single editor to keep readding the links, being reverted by multiple other editors. Doing this goes against the spirit, albeit not the letter, of the 1RR restriction, so please do not add them back without consensus here on the talk page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Genetically modified food controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
there's this section in the article:
Chemical use
Birth defects in Hawaii caused a controversy, and public outcry of people concerned over heavy pesticide usage. Hawaii uses ten times the amount of pesticides compared to the rest of the U.S. [1]
References
92.196.53.191 ( talk) 00:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Reference 208: Tang G, Hu Y, Yin SA, Wang Y, Dallal GE, Grusak MA, Russell RM (September 2012). "β-Carotene in Golden Rice is as good as β-carotene in oil at providing vitamin A to children". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 96 (3): 658–64. doi:10.3945/ajcn.111.030775. PMC 3417220Freely accessible. PMID 22854406.
Was retracted. The retraction states that:
1. The authors are unable to provide sufficient evidence that the study had been reviewed and approved by a local ethics committee in China in a manner fully consistent with NIH guidelines. Furthermore, the engaged institutions in China did not have US Federal Wide Assurances and had not registered their Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Review Committee).
2. The authors are unable to substantiate through documentary evidence that all parents or children involved in the study were provided with the full consent form for the study.
3. Specific eligibility issues were identified in regard to 2 subjects in the study.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:78bc:7800:c9e2:f5cb:e29a:3591 ( talk • contribs) 05:00, February 13, 2017 (UTC)
In all I thought this article was very well written. The writing was very easy to understand, and I didn't feel as though there was any bias in the writing of the articles. Especially at the beginning of the article I was impressed with how many sources there were to back up some claims, and from the sources that I looked at, they all seemed to be from very reliable sources. Another thing that I found very helpful was the thoroughness of the information. It covered all the important issues such as health and the environment, went into great detail. Where I thought here could be more information was in the "Public Perception" area. It contains a very brief paragraph about the history, and I believe that the history GM foods could use it's own sections and be elaborated more thoroughly. It also is extremely brief on explaining the view point of certain social groups. It feels very rushed, and I believe there is more information for all groups to be added. Then, the article could include subheadings for these certain sections. In all the article felt very thorough and organized. RonniL ( talk) 04:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is incredibly comprehensive, but is consequently very dense. Because of this, it sometimes wavers on the border of being too detail heavy, in my opinion, and therefore difficult to digest. It is certainly a very thorough, and remarkably objective, perspective on the topic, however. Many primary sources are referenced, and frequently include prominent and/or reputable organizations and individuals such as Monsanto, Greenpeace, and the journal, "Scientific American." Making use of these specific authorities lends credibility to the text. There are a plethora of sources cited, and they are indicated very clearly both in the body of the text and in the References section at the end of the piece. The article is well divided into sections such as law, health, and the environment, but again, I feel that perhaps the subdivisions become too intricate and branched. It seems that if an individual were truly seeking to find a piece of information at the level of detail that this article reaches, they would have a difficult time finding it because there are just so many specifics to sort through. This article also includes many case studies and reviews, which are frequently named but not often given much context. Overall, the writing addresses all key points in a calculated, balanced fashion, and is not lacking in holistic depth. However, I sometimes feel it becomes overbearing and weighty, bogged down by minute details and brief references. Mckenth ( talk) 03:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
In the second paragraph under the Gene Flow subheading there was the claim: 'In most countries environmental studies are required before approval of a GMO for commercial purposes, and a monitoring plan must be presented to identify unanticipated gene flow effects.', but this statement was made without any sources or further details about the extent of the studies. Is there a chance something like this could help the article? : http://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/gmo/acgm/ecrisk.htm
GrimJimTim ( talk) 23:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
At first glance, this article seems to be pretty good. However, upon further investigation, one sees that this article is - in reality - actually pretty good I guess.
I first examined the neutrality of this article. While it does seem that this article supports more heavily the side of the argument that claims that GMO's are just as adverse to health as conventional food, I feel that this is not the work of a biased editor - rather it seems that the weight of evidence, shifted more towards this viewpoint, is the cause of this perceived bias.
Backing up all of this evidence are the numerous citations. I feel that the citations are the strength of this article - there's a ton of them; enough for multiple citations per sentence. If the reader feels that a section of this article is biased, the reader can very easily find a number of articles from multiple different sources that support the idea in question.
Lazowsjt7759 ( talk) 03:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on Genetically modified food controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/news/New-Language-Found-Hidden-in-India/story.xhtml?story_id=02100000XZPX{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hpj.com/archives/2010/aug10/aug2/0716SeedMACOAug2sr.cfmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Environmental groups such as [[Friends of the Earth]],<ref>{{cite web |title=Genetic engineering |publisher=Friends of the Earth |url=http://www.foe.org/projects/food-and-technology/genetic-engineering}}</ref> include genetic engineering in general as an environmental and political concern. Other groups such as GMWatch and [[The Institute of Science in Society]] concentrate mostly or solely on opposing genetically modified crops.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GE-agriculture.php |title=GE-Agriculture |publisher=The Institute of Science in Society}}</ref><ref name=GMWatch>{{cite web |url=http://www.gmwatch.org/about |title=About GMWatch |publisher=GMWatch}}</ref>
This is entirely primary sourced. There's no evidence that GMWatch or the "Institute of Science in Society" (a tiny vanity project) are of any significance or importance. The section should either be removed, or supported by sources that meet the standard tests of reliability and independence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on Genetically modified food controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
While this and similar articles state the scientific consensus is that GMO foods pose no greater risk to humans than non-GMO foods, is there a consensus for environmental concerns? I believe there is, so I’m surprised not to see it here. -- That man from Nantucket ( talk) 23:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genetically modified food controversies has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I plan to edit in a section over golden rice controversy in China.
A 2012 study in China over the genetically modified grain –Golden Rice- gained much public awareness over the fact that US researchers were being accused of feeding the children the grain without consulting their parents (). The researchers not fully knowing the full effects of how Golden Rice decided to use the children as their test subjects. The next year an institute of American researchers in Tufts University concluded that these researchers broke ethical rules during their study of Golden Rice in China. [1] Cesar.Salade ( talk) 06:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
What hasn't been mentioned on the biodiversity section is that the food production increase on the agricultural fields also means that less land needs to be put into cultivation (with GM crops you can attain the amount of food necessary to sustain the population with less agricultural land), so in theory free up space for nature to go about its business undisturbed (less rainforest for instance may need to be cut down for soy production, ...). As such, it can be argued that this way, it actually protects a lot of biodiversity from being eradicated due to agricultural activity.
Can someone mention this in the section. I can't find any sources for this (other than this [1], so can't add it myself. Genetics4good ( talk) 09:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, can someone remove the "greenhouse gas emissions" word in the line "Potential effects include gene flow, pesticide resistance and greenhouse gas emissions." on this article ? Greenhouse gas reductions aren't mentioned here since they are not controversial, but the word is still mentioned here, which is confusing. Genetics4good ( talk) 09:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Genetically modified food controversies has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Chemical Use, under Pesticides, after second footnote in 3rd sentence 'That said, some still remains' .... should include the word disagreement or similar word, 71.55.191.153 ( talk) 14:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
GMO is still a political hot potato, and this article appears to use evidence biased towards the promotion of GMO.
Take, for instance the data source used regarding a shift in EU consumer perceptions - https://gmoinfo.eu/uk/files/510-briefing-eurobarometer-19june-2019-.pdf
This material is fully funded by EuropaBio. It is imperative that any Encyclopedia article does not take sides in a debate; and, while there may be some justification that, for scientists within the field of GM, there is a consensus that GMO foods can be as safe as non GMO, this article tends towards using far more politicised claims.
Any consumer who actually lives in the EU will tell you that, given the choice between labelled GMO food and unlabelled GMO food - they will go for labelled. Secondly, given the choice, a majority of consumers will choose against it.
The survey cited bases it’s data on using open questions about food, rather than mentioning GMO as a focus. As there has been little press or media coverage regarding any changes in status of GM food availability (and corresponding legislation), it is not surprising that the survey shows a decrease in concern about GMO ingredients. The survey does nothing to support its premise, except in the context of ‘active need for concern’. Were, for instance.
In the end, this article is currently a thinly veiled attempt by the GM lobby to argue the GM case. I would edit, but it is not my field. 20040302 ( talk) 10:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I can't (yet) edit this semi-protected page, so I was wondering if someone might be kind enough to look at this sentence toward the end of the "Public Perception" section before "Reviews and Polls". "Food writer Michael Pollan does not oppose eating genetically modified foods, but supports mandatory labeling of GM foods and has criticized the pesticide-heavy monoculture farming enabled by certain GM crops, such as glyphosate-tolerant ("Roundup-ready") corn and soybeans." My problem is the phrase "...pesticide-heavy monoculture farming..." If that is what Mr. Pollan said in the reference (I can't access that either), then it seems that phrase should be in quotes. If he didn't actually use that phrase, then it doesn't seem very unbiased to me.
I realize this article is about the controversies, but I believe this kind of wording doesn't really fit the WP:IMPARTIAL standard. But as a new editor, I'd love to hear other thoughts. Thanks! SadderButWiser ( talk) 22:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genetically modified food controversies has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference to: "with approximately 100 universities that allowed for university scientists to conduct research on their GM products with no oversight.[128]" Cited link has broken hyperlink to "with approximately 100 universities." This citations is used by a number of other cites, all lead to same broken cite. Kstreete ( talk) 03:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)