This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Genetically modified food controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 21 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
Frequently asked questions
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Is the article biased?
A1: Wikipedia’s official
neutral point of view policy requires us to treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the relevant academic field. Some views about GM foods are not supported by the relevant field (
biology), and the article needs to reflect this.
Q2: Are GM foods dangerous to human health?
A2: The
scientific consensus is that GM foods currently on the market pose no more risk than their conventional counterparts. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food. This conclusion has been reached by multiple independent
reliable sources, including major scientific organizations and most regulatory agencies responsible for food safety.
However, it is not possible to make a blanket statement about future GM foods. As a result, GM foods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and foods currently on the market have gone through regulatory and testing procedures evaluating whether the products are substantially equivalent to non-GM products. The view that these existing products are dangerous to human health is currently a fringe position in the academic community. The content in this Wikipedia article describing the scientific consensus, and the sourcing for it, was reviewed by the Wikipedia community in an open request for comment on three separate occasions. The first RfC (July–August 2013) evaluated a previous version of the language, [n 1] concluding that that the statement and sourcing complied with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and could be included in our articles. A second RfC about a similar version (May–July 2015) was inconclusive, primarily for procedural reasons, [n 2] and after considerable discussion ultimately led to a third RfC during June-July 2016. This resulted in the language currently used across Wikipedia articles related to genetically modified food. Because of the extent of the disputes leading up to the 2016 RfC, additional changes to this part of the article must follow one of the specific procedures described here. If you have a new proposal, the first step for each of these mechanisms is generally a detailed discussion with other editors at one or more of the relevant talk pages.
Q3: Aren't there studies that say current GM foods are dangerous to eat?
A3: There are a small number, but the overwhelming majority of studies have found no safety concerns. The exceptions do not invalidate the scientific consensus, because no scientific consensus is absolute. Among other things, it is normal for scientific experiments to occasionally return both
false positives and
false negatives.
If you have a study that you think should be included in the article, please make sure that it is peer-reviewed and has been discussed in medically reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, it is unlikely to have sufficient prominence to be discussed in the article. Note that information may have sufficient prominence for the Genetically modified food controversies article, but not for other GM-related articles, because the controversy article covers social aspects in greater depth. Additionally, statements which represent minority views should be placed in the context of the mainstream view. You are welcome to ask for assistance from more experienced editors on the talk page. For the studies by Pusztai and Séralini, see Pusztai affair and Séralini affair.Q4: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it?
A4: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of
verifiability,
reliability, and
no original research. Because of Wikipedia’s position as a trusted reference work, evidence for health-related claims must also follow the higher standard of
medical reliability. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page, but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of GM foods, but the article talk page is not such a forum. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Genetically modified food controversies. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Genetically modified food controversies at the Reference desk. |
Genetically modified food controversies received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Arbitration Committee has
authorized discretionary sanctions regarding the language used to summarize the safety and regulation of
genetically modified food on this and related articles (including talk pages).
|
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabriellaroselobitz95.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@ KoA: The POW has been destined to head the CoE since 14 November 1948. (Thanks. I wouldn't have learned that if not for your little quip there.) A quick trip to the page would have told you that his religious whims are constantly widely debated. "Defender of Faiths" doesn't mean that he's Jewish or anything like that of course, a quick rundown on him or his ancestry would suggest not, but he has obviously dialoged with various other peoples. Furthermore, he has had some awfully close experiences with assassination motivated by religion and ethnicity a few decades ago.
Your attempt to throw FRINGE
around:
Religious views on genetically modified foods exists. I was unaware. It is not linked anywhere in this article – it certainly should be. Something that should be there or here is: "a new form of slavery" by a Cardinal and one of the most important advisors to the current Pope.
[2] Certainly the Catholic Church is also in the mix here and has a variety of opinions on what should be legal and not, what we should be allowed to eat, buy, do with our money, and not.
Invasive Spices (
talk) 27 December 2021 (UTC)
ceremonialYes but are his statements on this subject noted? Certainly. More so than his mother. As for pertinence this quote from this person is certainly relevant. If we have quotes from others whose position is relevant but their statements are not necessarily on that subject, I don't know. That would be something to debate. In the case of the Cardinal I quoted above it was part of an interview on his beliefs, with a newspaper owned by his employer, so I do think that example is also appropriate. Invasive Spices ( talk) 28 December 2021 (UTC)
A section which could see some improvement, or additional information added under the environment section after the "resistant insect pest" subsection, to have a subsection titled "herbicide resistant weeds." This has been proven to be an issue with the usage of herbicides causing weeds to become "super weeds," making them difficult to deal with and the use of herbicide to become counterintuitive. [1]
Came across some interesting primary papers that may be worth chasing down secondary reviews that cite them for later content in the public perception section:
Mostly just leaving these in case I don't get to it later and someone else wants to craft content KoA ( talk) 14:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rachaelmk ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Prokope45 ( talk) 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Genetically modified food controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 21 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
Frequently asked questions
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Is the article biased?
A1: Wikipedia’s official
neutral point of view policy requires us to treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the relevant academic field. Some views about GM foods are not supported by the relevant field (
biology), and the article needs to reflect this.
Q2: Are GM foods dangerous to human health?
A2: The
scientific consensus is that GM foods currently on the market pose no more risk than their conventional counterparts. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food. This conclusion has been reached by multiple independent
reliable sources, including major scientific organizations and most regulatory agencies responsible for food safety.
However, it is not possible to make a blanket statement about future GM foods. As a result, GM foods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and foods currently on the market have gone through regulatory and testing procedures evaluating whether the products are substantially equivalent to non-GM products. The view that these existing products are dangerous to human health is currently a fringe position in the academic community. The content in this Wikipedia article describing the scientific consensus, and the sourcing for it, was reviewed by the Wikipedia community in an open request for comment on three separate occasions. The first RfC (July–August 2013) evaluated a previous version of the language, [n 1] concluding that that the statement and sourcing complied with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and could be included in our articles. A second RfC about a similar version (May–July 2015) was inconclusive, primarily for procedural reasons, [n 2] and after considerable discussion ultimately led to a third RfC during June-July 2016. This resulted in the language currently used across Wikipedia articles related to genetically modified food. Because of the extent of the disputes leading up to the 2016 RfC, additional changes to this part of the article must follow one of the specific procedures described here. If you have a new proposal, the first step for each of these mechanisms is generally a detailed discussion with other editors at one or more of the relevant talk pages.
Q3: Aren't there studies that say current GM foods are dangerous to eat?
A3: There are a small number, but the overwhelming majority of studies have found no safety concerns. The exceptions do not invalidate the scientific consensus, because no scientific consensus is absolute. Among other things, it is normal for scientific experiments to occasionally return both
false positives and
false negatives.
If you have a study that you think should be included in the article, please make sure that it is peer-reviewed and has been discussed in medically reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, it is unlikely to have sufficient prominence to be discussed in the article. Note that information may have sufficient prominence for the Genetically modified food controversies article, but not for other GM-related articles, because the controversy article covers social aspects in greater depth. Additionally, statements which represent minority views should be placed in the context of the mainstream view. You are welcome to ask for assistance from more experienced editors on the talk page. For the studies by Pusztai and Séralini, see Pusztai affair and Séralini affair.Q4: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it?
A4: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of
verifiability,
reliability, and
no original research. Because of Wikipedia’s position as a trusted reference work, evidence for health-related claims must also follow the higher standard of
medical reliability. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page, but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of GM foods, but the article talk page is not such a forum. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Genetically modified food controversies. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Genetically modified food controversies at the Reference desk. |
Genetically modified food controversies received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Arbitration Committee has
authorized discretionary sanctions regarding the language used to summarize the safety and regulation of
genetically modified food on this and related articles (including talk pages).
|
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabriellaroselobitz95.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@ KoA: The POW has been destined to head the CoE since 14 November 1948. (Thanks. I wouldn't have learned that if not for your little quip there.) A quick trip to the page would have told you that his religious whims are constantly widely debated. "Defender of Faiths" doesn't mean that he's Jewish or anything like that of course, a quick rundown on him or his ancestry would suggest not, but he has obviously dialoged with various other peoples. Furthermore, he has had some awfully close experiences with assassination motivated by religion and ethnicity a few decades ago.
Your attempt to throw FRINGE
around:
Religious views on genetically modified foods exists. I was unaware. It is not linked anywhere in this article – it certainly should be. Something that should be there or here is: "a new form of slavery" by a Cardinal and one of the most important advisors to the current Pope.
[2] Certainly the Catholic Church is also in the mix here and has a variety of opinions on what should be legal and not, what we should be allowed to eat, buy, do with our money, and not.
Invasive Spices (
talk) 27 December 2021 (UTC)
ceremonialYes but are his statements on this subject noted? Certainly. More so than his mother. As for pertinence this quote from this person is certainly relevant. If we have quotes from others whose position is relevant but their statements are not necessarily on that subject, I don't know. That would be something to debate. In the case of the Cardinal I quoted above it was part of an interview on his beliefs, with a newspaper owned by his employer, so I do think that example is also appropriate. Invasive Spices ( talk) 28 December 2021 (UTC)
A section which could see some improvement, or additional information added under the environment section after the "resistant insect pest" subsection, to have a subsection titled "herbicide resistant weeds." This has been proven to be an issue with the usage of herbicides causing weeds to become "super weeds," making them difficult to deal with and the use of herbicide to become counterintuitive. [1]
Came across some interesting primary papers that may be worth chasing down secondary reviews that cite them for later content in the public perception section:
Mostly just leaving these in case I don't get to it later and someone else wants to craft content KoA ( talk) 14:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rachaelmk ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Prokope45 ( talk) 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)