![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
This article is written from a very subjective pro-GMO POV, centred on North America, particularly the US. It uses dated sources and figures, it's language and structure are quite manipulative and it also ignores several key concerns and controversies which would put GMOs in a much more negative light. Also, some of the "facts" of this article have been proven wrong and the article also misstates some others slightly in ways that would make GMOs seem better. Also, it tends to focus on one side or aspect of a controversy which in many cases is not even the main aspect. Furthermore, the article makes it seem like only some radical activists and nuts, bad scientists, as well as uninformed/misinformed people oppose GMOs. Truth is that most people are at least sceptical of GMOs and that many mainstream organisations and for example most churches oppose GMOs which is not mentioned in the article despite its relevancy to the subject. Instead there are several off-topic sentences or even paragraphs aiming to discredit critics and to manipulate readers. There are also some questionable resources, though I haven't had time to check them all.
This article is therefore profoundly unencyclopedic and notes should be added warning readers of this. Also, most of this article requires a complete rewrite to avoid the subjectivity and manipulation present in the current article. Alexlikescats ( talk) 21:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Please undo 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. 3RR [2]
4 reverts made in less than 24 hours. [3] [4] [5] [6] "However, this retraction remains controversial. [1] [2] [3] [4]" Was also reverted by Bobrayner in same 24 hour period. [7]
Please discuss Edit warring. [8]
Examples [9] [10] Sportmedman ( talk) 19:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I made 4 separate edits [11] [12] [13] [14] and you reverted all 3 in less than 24 hours violating the 3RR. I will ask you again to undo your revert of the 3 separate edits. I will also again ask you to review 3RR [15] as well as discuss your edit warring. [16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportmedman ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
SmartSE A 4th revert was also made [17] "However, this retraction remains controversial. [5] [6] [7] [8]" Was also reverted by Bobrayner in same 24 hour period. [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportmedman ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 May 2014
Thank you for the advice Jytdog. I was unaware that someone can revert 4 or more previous edits from different times and dates in "one" edit and that is not considered a violation of 3RR. I apologize to Bobrayner for the misunderstanding. However, I do believe that Wikipedia's 3RR rule is flawed as someone could revert an entire page to how it was years ago in "one" edit and make hundreds of reversions in the process yet that be considered "one" edit. I also plan to discuss my edits that were reverted by Bobrayner with him when I have more time. Thanks to everyone here for the help understanding 3RR and other advice. Sportmedman ( talk) 12:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The reference provided for this statement, "Food and Chemical Toxicology published 17 letters to the editor that expressed strong criticism of the Seralini paper." [19] is a link to the journal home page which does not support the statement. Please provide proper reference or remove. Sportmedman ( talk) 23:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
In the Scientific Publishing section [20]
The sentence :
"A 2013 review of 1,783 papers on genetically modified crops and food published between 2002 and 2012 found no plausible evidence of dangers from genetic engineering to humans or animals."
This edit was reverted to the above sentence :
"A 2013 review of 1,783 papers on genetically modified crops and food published between 2002 and 2012 concluded the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of authorized GM crops."
The current sentence is misleading since it gives the impression of no evidence of danger from any genetically engineering crops authorized or unauthorized. This is not supported by the review which states, "only two cases are known about the potential allergenicity of transgenic proteins, the verified case of the brazil-nut storage protein in soybean, which has not been marketed'.
So the authors acknowledge at least one unauthorized genetically engineered crop could have potential risks for humans. They go on to say, "pre-screening of transgenic proteins through bioinformatic analyses contributes to avoid the introduction of potentially toxic, allergenic or bioactive proteins into food and feed crops" So again they acknowledge that unauthorized genetically engineered crops that have not gone through this pre-screening process may have potential risks.
All of this is under a section that begins with, "The experimental data collected so far on authorized GE crops can be summarized as follows:"
My edit uses almost an exact quote from the conclusion which says :
"the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops."
The only word I added was the word, "authorized" to give those who have not read the full study a better understanding of what the authors are talking about.
The almost exact quote from the conclusion of the review should be used here since it is what the authors actually conclude. If not, the sentence should at least be changed to indicate that the authors are only talking about authorized genetically modified crops and food. Sportmedman ( talk) 22:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
In the section Controversial studies [21] for the 2012 Seralini paragraph. The following sentence was added and then reverted :
"However, this retraction remains controversial. [22] [23] [24] [25]
One reference was rightfully deleted by User:Jytdog since it was before the retraction.
This paragraph contains 14 sentences of which 12 mention only criticism, 1 sentence describes the results of the study which I will comment on and 1 sentence states that the author responded to the criticism.
This paragraph gives the impression that there is no controversy and only the author supports the study.
Several claims are made in this paragraph which have citations that do not support the claim or have some broken links such as:
"The paper concluded that rats fed the modified maize had an increased incidence of cancer."
The authors actually state, "We drew no inference and made no claims about “cancer” ; nowhere did we claim a “definitive link between GMO and cancer”. In fact, our entire paper does not even mention the word “cancer”." [26]
Another example :
"National food safety and regulatory agencies also reviewed the paper and dismissed it."
There are several broken links or links that seem to have nothing to do with this sentence here which should be fixed or removed. [27] [28] [29] [30]
Of the few that do work such as the CTNBIO citation by 4 people [31] there are more than 4 members and former members of CTNBIO that wrote in support of the study. [32] So a controversy exists.
Another is an EFSA reference [33] which has been criticized in a peer reviewed paper for having a double standard. [34] So a controversy exists.
Another example is the following :
"Food and Chemical Toxicology published 17 letters to the editor that expressed strong criticism of the Seralini paper." [35]
This reference is to a journal home page which I previously mentioned. [36]
In the journal's link to the paper itself [37] I count a total of 13 letters published before the retraction with at least 1 of these supporting the study. [38]
Since the retraction there were 5 letters to the editor published. 4 of these letters question the retraction [39] [40] [41] [42] and only one supports the retraction. [43]
The journal itself published more criticism of the retraction than support, yet this Wikipedia article doesn't even mention a controversy for the retraction exists. There also does not seem to be 17 letters to the editor that expressed strong criticism published here.
Since there is no mention of anything that occurred after the retraction in this Wikipedia article, not even the author questioning the retraction, it gives the impression that everyone including the authors accept the retraction which is not the case. [44]
I wouldn't expect a detailed explanation of the controversy. A sentence stating that the retraction is controversial or at least shows somebody disagrees with the retraction would lend a more neutral point of view [45] especially since the journal itself published more criticism of the retraction than support. I would appreciate any feedback. Sportmedman ( talk) 23:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your help Jytdog. Sportmedman ( talk) 21:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
In the Insecticide section [48]
Sentences read :
A study on the effects of using Bt cotton in six northern provinces of China from 1990 to 2010 concluded that Bt cotton halved the use of pesticides and doubled the level of ladybirds, lacewings and spiders, with the environmental benefits extended to neighbouring crops of maize, peanuts and soybeans. [49] [50]
In 2012, a study published in Nature showed that the use of Bt cotton has halved the use of insecticides. Usually insecicides also kill the natural enemies of pests, so this has led to an increased number of the enemies and hence also decreased the numbers of secondary pests. The surrounding, non-modified fields have also benefitted from the nearby crops. Southampton University ecology professor Guy Poppy said that the huge scale of the study will end the discussion on the subject. [51] [52]
Both the top sentence and bottom paragraph are about the same study and mislead the reader into believing these are two different studies.
Deleting either the top sentence or bottom paragraph just makes sense since they both contain almost the same information like:
"Bt cotton halved the use of pesticides" in the top sentence and, "Bt cotton has halved the use of insecticides" in the bottom paragraph,
or, "with the environmental benefits extended to neighbouring crops" in the top sentence and, "The surrounding, non-modified fields have also benefitted" in the bottom paragraph.
If not, then it should all be combined into one paragraph so it does not give the appearance of two different studies. Sportmedman ( talk) 22:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Please do not remove this until the lead conforms to the requirements set out in the tag. I do not see an "overview of the article's key points in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." There are eight main sections in the article, currently the lead only touches upon a fraction of what is presented. Semitransgenic talk. 09:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Most products on the market undergo a testing process which including independent testing which then makes public that information good or bad and is reviewed and regulated by the government additionally for safety concerns. Monsanto has a considerable hold on the government through lobbying, funding campaigns, and placing their employees in charge of positions which are meant to safeguard the public from their products up to and including getting a supreme court justice placed on the bench who refuses to recuse himself in cases with a conflict of interest. There has never been a single independent paper done on GMO products. In order for any scientist to test a product they must sign a contract stating if Monsanto finds the results to be negative the scientist is not allowed to publish that information. This is not normal in the least. While the few negative tests that have been published on the subject were yes not great science the many positive tests are also flawed for this reason. You have the boards of organizations like the AAAS paid by Monsanto and backing their claims while the individual scientists inside the AAAS coming out and saying the statements made by their organization do not represent the views of those doing the science on the issue. If the board is making this pro-GMO statement for profit and political reasons while those disagreeing are anti-GMO based purely on the science how can you possibly say there is a consensus in the science community? If a company stands to make billions of dollars if they are lying and fighting so hard to deny any real science to back it up there is nearly always a reason. It took a very long time to get science and regulatory committees and corporations to admit a product like tobacco can cause any health issues at all. GMOs are going through the exact same process.
You should truly either change the GMO articles or change the wiki article for what the scientific method means or you are failing at a fundamental level to inform those that go to you for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.227.32 ( talk) 14:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Overall, it was super informative and I learned a lot. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuller.328 ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Found some information that may be of use to the Insecticides, or even Yield, section of your article. It is more recent than than the studies you have listed in the Insecticides section, and discusses the Bt sweet corn and insecticide use in New York, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, and Georgia. It supports your first sentence in the section, stating "Our data shows that using Bt sweet corn will dramatically reduce the use of traditional pesticides. ... growers should realize increased profits, and there will be less risk to non-target organisms..." Here is the link: http://sbc.ucdavis.edu/images/Shelton-Bt%20sweet%20corn%20multi-state%20trials-JEconEntomol-2013.pdf
Shelton, A.M., D.L. Olmstead, E.C. Burkness, W.D. Hutchison, G. Dively, C. Welty and A.N. Sparks. Multi-state trials of Bt sweet corn varieties for control of the corn earworm, Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol., October 2013
Just thought it might be helpful and provide more recent support to the section. Do with it as you like.
Also, I was wondering if you could give a few details on the Entropy article on herbicides that was deemed unreliable. I looked in the Talk archives and had trouble finding the discussion about it. Just curious what went wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuller.328 ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/341069. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 21:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Lfstevens, about your edit condensing the lead, just so you know, not long ago another editor tagged this article claiming that the lead was not complete. See Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies/Archive_9#Lead_inadequate_tag. not objecting to your edit, just making sure you are aware of how it go to where it was prior to your edit. Jytdog ( talk) 17:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Working my way through this overlong article. Feedback encouraged. Comments (more to come):
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I don't see why these have sections to themselves. I'd suggest merging them into the appropriate other sections (Labeling, etc.) Without objection, I will do so. Lfstevens ( talk) 21:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see anything about the economy in this para:
I left it there after shortening it. I'll try to find a better place for it. Lfstevens ( talk) 01:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms).
PDF download here.
According to Medium.com, " Genetically Modified Organisms Risk Global Ruin, Says Black Swan Author. Experts have severely underestimated the risks of genetically modified food, says a group of researchers lead by Nassim Nicholas Taleb."
I'm interested in a discussion on how the article by Taleb and his coauthors may be used to improve this Wikipedia article.
IjonTichy ( talk) 17:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I removed that bit because it was vague and not specifically sourced. It would be better to use a cited quote than a statement. Also how wide is widely? Another way to handle it is to cite some examples of its misuse. Lfstevens ( talk) 22:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Lfstevens per the above conversation, see this piece of vandalism; it is typical. Jytdog ( talk) 19:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
we've been over this before, citation overkill is not helpful, use a few strong sources that make this statement categorically, do not string a bunch of cites together to support a statement, that's OR, it also contravenes guidelines on Text–source integrity. Unless you can demonstrate that the cited source reflects what is written, do not use it as a citation. Semitransgenic talk. 01:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
just came across this source: "Michael Spector for the New Yorker. 21 November. 2014 European Science’s Great Leap Backward", which is about the elimination of the position of the "chief scientific adviser to the President of the European Commission". According to that article, this happened following statements made by the former occupant, Anne Glover, confirming the scientific consensus on the relative safety of currently marketed GM foods, and calling opposition on the grounds of food safety "madness" Not sure if this is a big enough deal to generate content. Jytdog ( talk) 17:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
This page could be gamed any which way. I reckon best off that everyone edits with a named account. Happy for me (or any other admin) to unprotect if an IP puts a case for it. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genetically modified food controversies has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
just pointing out the "g" is left out of the hyperlink "genetic use restriction technology".
One way to avoid environmental contamination is g enetic use restriction technology (GURT), also
it should be
One way to avoid environmental contamination is genetic use restriction technology (GURT), also 199.107.67.99 ( talk) 02:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I tried to reach where this statement came from "Opponents of genetically modified food, such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists,", but I didn't find anywhere that the Union of Concerned Scientist are opponents of genetically modified food. Can somebody either add a reference or delete it? Thanks, Fernando. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando Aleman G ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi again. Thanks for your answer. I followed reference #20 and they just say "That’s the point Margaret Mellon made when I called her at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in Washington, D.C. Mellon has been critical of U.S. policies on genetically engineered crops". Furthermore, I couldn't find this person at the Union of Concerned Scientist website, but what I found on their website is "Does UCS have a position on GE?" http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering-agriculture and obviously they are not against GM food. They just want more control and more proofs of their safety, but they don't "opposed" to genetically modified food. I see this issue as a large scientific consensus about the safety of GMOs but (the same as with climate change) there are still a few scientist that go against majority. So that statement is at least misleading if not completely wrong. Thanks, Fernando.
They do all the moves typical of the anti-GMO movement:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.
i don't understand your comment. The document you listed there is one of their key planks in opposing GM crops (see their 3 recommendations on page 5, each of which recommend directing $ away from GE research and making it more difficult to get new GM crops approved. That is opposition. Shall we cite that article of theirs as evidence of their opposition? Jytdog ( talk) 18:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Stacie, Jytdog and Kingofaces43. I think in this link we can all see very clear that the UCS does not oppose GMOs: http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering-agriculture#.VIZpsckrEuE At the end of their site they expose their opinion. Which is a middle position, "GMOs can be good and can be bad" that's all. Is anybody understanding something different? If you guys understand the same, the sentence "Opponents of genetically modified food, such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists," is just wrong, because they don't support GMOs nor oppose them, they just want to be cautious. Do we agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando Aleman G ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I took out the statement:
This is not universally true, the regulation varies by country. The first source cited goes to a broken link. The second source is related to U.S. policy and is not ubiquitous. The last source appears simply to argue in favor of the the substantial equivalence method.
I'm not sure why Jytdog reverted my deletion. I had already informed Jytdog on my talk page that this statement is incorrect and unjustifiable.
This policy is not used in the E.U. See: Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union. GMO regulation varies widely by country. See: Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms David Tornheim ( talk) 18:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
This article is written from a very subjective pro-GMO POV, centred on North America, particularly the US. It uses dated sources and figures, it's language and structure are quite manipulative and it also ignores several key concerns and controversies which would put GMOs in a much more negative light. Also, some of the "facts" of this article have been proven wrong and the article also misstates some others slightly in ways that would make GMOs seem better. Also, it tends to focus on one side or aspect of a controversy which in many cases is not even the main aspect. Furthermore, the article makes it seem like only some radical activists and nuts, bad scientists, as well as uninformed/misinformed people oppose GMOs. Truth is that most people are at least sceptical of GMOs and that many mainstream organisations and for example most churches oppose GMOs which is not mentioned in the article despite its relevancy to the subject. Instead there are several off-topic sentences or even paragraphs aiming to discredit critics and to manipulate readers. There are also some questionable resources, though I haven't had time to check them all.
This article is therefore profoundly unencyclopedic and notes should be added warning readers of this. Also, most of this article requires a complete rewrite to avoid the subjectivity and manipulation present in the current article. Alexlikescats ( talk) 21:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Please undo 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. 3RR [2]
4 reverts made in less than 24 hours. [3] [4] [5] [6] "However, this retraction remains controversial. [1] [2] [3] [4]" Was also reverted by Bobrayner in same 24 hour period. [7]
Please discuss Edit warring. [8]
Examples [9] [10] Sportmedman ( talk) 19:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I made 4 separate edits [11] [12] [13] [14] and you reverted all 3 in less than 24 hours violating the 3RR. I will ask you again to undo your revert of the 3 separate edits. I will also again ask you to review 3RR [15] as well as discuss your edit warring. [16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportmedman ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
SmartSE A 4th revert was also made [17] "However, this retraction remains controversial. [5] [6] [7] [8]" Was also reverted by Bobrayner in same 24 hour period. [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportmedman ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 May 2014
Thank you for the advice Jytdog. I was unaware that someone can revert 4 or more previous edits from different times and dates in "one" edit and that is not considered a violation of 3RR. I apologize to Bobrayner for the misunderstanding. However, I do believe that Wikipedia's 3RR rule is flawed as someone could revert an entire page to how it was years ago in "one" edit and make hundreds of reversions in the process yet that be considered "one" edit. I also plan to discuss my edits that were reverted by Bobrayner with him when I have more time. Thanks to everyone here for the help understanding 3RR and other advice. Sportmedman ( talk) 12:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The reference provided for this statement, "Food and Chemical Toxicology published 17 letters to the editor that expressed strong criticism of the Seralini paper." [19] is a link to the journal home page which does not support the statement. Please provide proper reference or remove. Sportmedman ( talk) 23:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
In the Scientific Publishing section [20]
The sentence :
"A 2013 review of 1,783 papers on genetically modified crops and food published between 2002 and 2012 found no plausible evidence of dangers from genetic engineering to humans or animals."
This edit was reverted to the above sentence :
"A 2013 review of 1,783 papers on genetically modified crops and food published between 2002 and 2012 concluded the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of authorized GM crops."
The current sentence is misleading since it gives the impression of no evidence of danger from any genetically engineering crops authorized or unauthorized. This is not supported by the review which states, "only two cases are known about the potential allergenicity of transgenic proteins, the verified case of the brazil-nut storage protein in soybean, which has not been marketed'.
So the authors acknowledge at least one unauthorized genetically engineered crop could have potential risks for humans. They go on to say, "pre-screening of transgenic proteins through bioinformatic analyses contributes to avoid the introduction of potentially toxic, allergenic or bioactive proteins into food and feed crops" So again they acknowledge that unauthorized genetically engineered crops that have not gone through this pre-screening process may have potential risks.
All of this is under a section that begins with, "The experimental data collected so far on authorized GE crops can be summarized as follows:"
My edit uses almost an exact quote from the conclusion which says :
"the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops."
The only word I added was the word, "authorized" to give those who have not read the full study a better understanding of what the authors are talking about.
The almost exact quote from the conclusion of the review should be used here since it is what the authors actually conclude. If not, the sentence should at least be changed to indicate that the authors are only talking about authorized genetically modified crops and food. Sportmedman ( talk) 22:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
In the section Controversial studies [21] for the 2012 Seralini paragraph. The following sentence was added and then reverted :
"However, this retraction remains controversial. [22] [23] [24] [25]
One reference was rightfully deleted by User:Jytdog since it was before the retraction.
This paragraph contains 14 sentences of which 12 mention only criticism, 1 sentence describes the results of the study which I will comment on and 1 sentence states that the author responded to the criticism.
This paragraph gives the impression that there is no controversy and only the author supports the study.
Several claims are made in this paragraph which have citations that do not support the claim or have some broken links such as:
"The paper concluded that rats fed the modified maize had an increased incidence of cancer."
The authors actually state, "We drew no inference and made no claims about “cancer” ; nowhere did we claim a “definitive link between GMO and cancer”. In fact, our entire paper does not even mention the word “cancer”." [26]
Another example :
"National food safety and regulatory agencies also reviewed the paper and dismissed it."
There are several broken links or links that seem to have nothing to do with this sentence here which should be fixed or removed. [27] [28] [29] [30]
Of the few that do work such as the CTNBIO citation by 4 people [31] there are more than 4 members and former members of CTNBIO that wrote in support of the study. [32] So a controversy exists.
Another is an EFSA reference [33] which has been criticized in a peer reviewed paper for having a double standard. [34] So a controversy exists.
Another example is the following :
"Food and Chemical Toxicology published 17 letters to the editor that expressed strong criticism of the Seralini paper." [35]
This reference is to a journal home page which I previously mentioned. [36]
In the journal's link to the paper itself [37] I count a total of 13 letters published before the retraction with at least 1 of these supporting the study. [38]
Since the retraction there were 5 letters to the editor published. 4 of these letters question the retraction [39] [40] [41] [42] and only one supports the retraction. [43]
The journal itself published more criticism of the retraction than support, yet this Wikipedia article doesn't even mention a controversy for the retraction exists. There also does not seem to be 17 letters to the editor that expressed strong criticism published here.
Since there is no mention of anything that occurred after the retraction in this Wikipedia article, not even the author questioning the retraction, it gives the impression that everyone including the authors accept the retraction which is not the case. [44]
I wouldn't expect a detailed explanation of the controversy. A sentence stating that the retraction is controversial or at least shows somebody disagrees with the retraction would lend a more neutral point of view [45] especially since the journal itself published more criticism of the retraction than support. I would appreciate any feedback. Sportmedman ( talk) 23:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your help Jytdog. Sportmedman ( talk) 21:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
In the Insecticide section [48]
Sentences read :
A study on the effects of using Bt cotton in six northern provinces of China from 1990 to 2010 concluded that Bt cotton halved the use of pesticides and doubled the level of ladybirds, lacewings and spiders, with the environmental benefits extended to neighbouring crops of maize, peanuts and soybeans. [49] [50]
In 2012, a study published in Nature showed that the use of Bt cotton has halved the use of insecticides. Usually insecicides also kill the natural enemies of pests, so this has led to an increased number of the enemies and hence also decreased the numbers of secondary pests. The surrounding, non-modified fields have also benefitted from the nearby crops. Southampton University ecology professor Guy Poppy said that the huge scale of the study will end the discussion on the subject. [51] [52]
Both the top sentence and bottom paragraph are about the same study and mislead the reader into believing these are two different studies.
Deleting either the top sentence or bottom paragraph just makes sense since they both contain almost the same information like:
"Bt cotton halved the use of pesticides" in the top sentence and, "Bt cotton has halved the use of insecticides" in the bottom paragraph,
or, "with the environmental benefits extended to neighbouring crops" in the top sentence and, "The surrounding, non-modified fields have also benefitted" in the bottom paragraph.
If not, then it should all be combined into one paragraph so it does not give the appearance of two different studies. Sportmedman ( talk) 22:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Please do not remove this until the lead conforms to the requirements set out in the tag. I do not see an "overview of the article's key points in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." There are eight main sections in the article, currently the lead only touches upon a fraction of what is presented. Semitransgenic talk. 09:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Most products on the market undergo a testing process which including independent testing which then makes public that information good or bad and is reviewed and regulated by the government additionally for safety concerns. Monsanto has a considerable hold on the government through lobbying, funding campaigns, and placing their employees in charge of positions which are meant to safeguard the public from their products up to and including getting a supreme court justice placed on the bench who refuses to recuse himself in cases with a conflict of interest. There has never been a single independent paper done on GMO products. In order for any scientist to test a product they must sign a contract stating if Monsanto finds the results to be negative the scientist is not allowed to publish that information. This is not normal in the least. While the few negative tests that have been published on the subject were yes not great science the many positive tests are also flawed for this reason. You have the boards of organizations like the AAAS paid by Monsanto and backing their claims while the individual scientists inside the AAAS coming out and saying the statements made by their organization do not represent the views of those doing the science on the issue. If the board is making this pro-GMO statement for profit and political reasons while those disagreeing are anti-GMO based purely on the science how can you possibly say there is a consensus in the science community? If a company stands to make billions of dollars if they are lying and fighting so hard to deny any real science to back it up there is nearly always a reason. It took a very long time to get science and regulatory committees and corporations to admit a product like tobacco can cause any health issues at all. GMOs are going through the exact same process.
You should truly either change the GMO articles or change the wiki article for what the scientific method means or you are failing at a fundamental level to inform those that go to you for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.227.32 ( talk) 14:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Overall, it was super informative and I learned a lot. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuller.328 ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Found some information that may be of use to the Insecticides, or even Yield, section of your article. It is more recent than than the studies you have listed in the Insecticides section, and discusses the Bt sweet corn and insecticide use in New York, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, and Georgia. It supports your first sentence in the section, stating "Our data shows that using Bt sweet corn will dramatically reduce the use of traditional pesticides. ... growers should realize increased profits, and there will be less risk to non-target organisms..." Here is the link: http://sbc.ucdavis.edu/images/Shelton-Bt%20sweet%20corn%20multi-state%20trials-JEconEntomol-2013.pdf
Shelton, A.M., D.L. Olmstead, E.C. Burkness, W.D. Hutchison, G. Dively, C. Welty and A.N. Sparks. Multi-state trials of Bt sweet corn varieties for control of the corn earworm, Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol., October 2013
Just thought it might be helpful and provide more recent support to the section. Do with it as you like.
Also, I was wondering if you could give a few details on the Entropy article on herbicides that was deemed unreliable. I looked in the Talk archives and had trouble finding the discussion about it. Just curious what went wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuller.328 ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/341069. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 21:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Lfstevens, about your edit condensing the lead, just so you know, not long ago another editor tagged this article claiming that the lead was not complete. See Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies/Archive_9#Lead_inadequate_tag. not objecting to your edit, just making sure you are aware of how it go to where it was prior to your edit. Jytdog ( talk) 17:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Working my way through this overlong article. Feedback encouraged. Comments (more to come):
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I don't see why these have sections to themselves. I'd suggest merging them into the appropriate other sections (Labeling, etc.) Without objection, I will do so. Lfstevens ( talk) 21:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see anything about the economy in this para:
I left it there after shortening it. I'll try to find a better place for it. Lfstevens ( talk) 01:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms).
PDF download here.
According to Medium.com, " Genetically Modified Organisms Risk Global Ruin, Says Black Swan Author. Experts have severely underestimated the risks of genetically modified food, says a group of researchers lead by Nassim Nicholas Taleb."
I'm interested in a discussion on how the article by Taleb and his coauthors may be used to improve this Wikipedia article.
IjonTichy ( talk) 17:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I removed that bit because it was vague and not specifically sourced. It would be better to use a cited quote than a statement. Also how wide is widely? Another way to handle it is to cite some examples of its misuse. Lfstevens ( talk) 22:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Lfstevens per the above conversation, see this piece of vandalism; it is typical. Jytdog ( talk) 19:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
we've been over this before, citation overkill is not helpful, use a few strong sources that make this statement categorically, do not string a bunch of cites together to support a statement, that's OR, it also contravenes guidelines on Text–source integrity. Unless you can demonstrate that the cited source reflects what is written, do not use it as a citation. Semitransgenic talk. 01:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
just came across this source: "Michael Spector for the New Yorker. 21 November. 2014 European Science’s Great Leap Backward", which is about the elimination of the position of the "chief scientific adviser to the President of the European Commission". According to that article, this happened following statements made by the former occupant, Anne Glover, confirming the scientific consensus on the relative safety of currently marketed GM foods, and calling opposition on the grounds of food safety "madness" Not sure if this is a big enough deal to generate content. Jytdog ( talk) 17:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
This page could be gamed any which way. I reckon best off that everyone edits with a named account. Happy for me (or any other admin) to unprotect if an IP puts a case for it. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Genetically modified food controversies has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
just pointing out the "g" is left out of the hyperlink "genetic use restriction technology".
One way to avoid environmental contamination is g enetic use restriction technology (GURT), also
it should be
One way to avoid environmental contamination is genetic use restriction technology (GURT), also 199.107.67.99 ( talk) 02:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I tried to reach where this statement came from "Opponents of genetically modified food, such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists,", but I didn't find anywhere that the Union of Concerned Scientist are opponents of genetically modified food. Can somebody either add a reference or delete it? Thanks, Fernando. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando Aleman G ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi again. Thanks for your answer. I followed reference #20 and they just say "That’s the point Margaret Mellon made when I called her at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in Washington, D.C. Mellon has been critical of U.S. policies on genetically engineered crops". Furthermore, I couldn't find this person at the Union of Concerned Scientist website, but what I found on their website is "Does UCS have a position on GE?" http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering-agriculture and obviously they are not against GM food. They just want more control and more proofs of their safety, but they don't "opposed" to genetically modified food. I see this issue as a large scientific consensus about the safety of GMOs but (the same as with climate change) there are still a few scientist that go against majority. So that statement is at least misleading if not completely wrong. Thanks, Fernando.
They do all the moves typical of the anti-GMO movement:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.
i don't understand your comment. The document you listed there is one of their key planks in opposing GM crops (see their 3 recommendations on page 5, each of which recommend directing $ away from GE research and making it more difficult to get new GM crops approved. That is opposition. Shall we cite that article of theirs as evidence of their opposition? Jytdog ( talk) 18:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Stacie, Jytdog and Kingofaces43. I think in this link we can all see very clear that the UCS does not oppose GMOs: http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering-agriculture#.VIZpsckrEuE At the end of their site they expose their opinion. Which is a middle position, "GMOs can be good and can be bad" that's all. Is anybody understanding something different? If you guys understand the same, the sentence "Opponents of genetically modified food, such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists," is just wrong, because they don't support GMOs nor oppose them, they just want to be cautious. Do we agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando Aleman G ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I took out the statement:
This is not universally true, the regulation varies by country. The first source cited goes to a broken link. The second source is related to U.S. policy and is not ubiquitous. The last source appears simply to argue in favor of the the substantial equivalence method.
I'm not sure why Jytdog reverted my deletion. I had already informed Jytdog on my talk page that this statement is incorrect and unjustifiable.
This policy is not used in the E.U. See: Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union. GMO regulation varies widely by country. See: Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms David Tornheim ( talk) 18:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)