Misplaced Pages

Talk:Genetically modified food controversies: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:39, 15 February 2015 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Substantial Equivalence: add a bit← Previous edit Revision as of 14:51, 15 February 2015 edit undoJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits add recruiting templateNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Template:Recruiting}}
{{notaforum}} {{notaforum}}
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} {{oldpeerreview|archive=1}}

Revision as of 14:51, 15 February 2015

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
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 Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
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 

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 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:WikiProject Genetics Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFood and drink Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEconomics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAgriculture Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12


This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Reference missing

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 Fernando. It is sourced in the body of the article. If you search the page for "Union of Concerned Scientists" you will see that reference #20 is used to support that statement. (btw the lead paragraph of an article just summarizes what is in the body and what appears in the lead doesn't need to be sourced unless it is controversial - this is all described in our guideline WP:LEAD) If you ever run into that problem again look in the body of the article! Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 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.

the union of concerned scientists unfortunately takes several fringe positions. this is one of them. the source supports the statement. if you want more just go to their website and you will see plenty. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Does UCS have a position on GE? Yes Stacie Croquet (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
yes and they exaggerate the risks there like anti-GMO groups. they are not mainstream in that. it is irresponsible science to write something like "GE crops do have the potential to cause a variety of health problems and environmental impacts." There is nothing on the planet that does not have that exact same potential. Making that their pole position locates them out of the mainstream. and what really puts the kicker in it is that anti-climate change groups make the same kind of bullshitty arguments. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
They State "We understand the potential benefits of the technology" Where is your evidence to support your edit that they Oppose it? Stacie Croquet (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

They do all the moves typical of the anti-GMO movement:

  • here where they supposedly describe what "genetic engineering" is, they provide ridiculous examples and emphasize only the risks. Remember this is the site where they are telling readers what genetic engineering is. Contrast with a site actually trying to educate, like say our page Genetic engineering or this blog of this university extension site. UCS' "education" site is just fear-mongering, uneducational bullshit. (can you tell that I am disappointed with the nonscientific approach of the Union of Concerned Scientists?)
  • as i wrote above, in the "Environmental and health risks" section they have the nonsensical statement: "While the risks of genetic engineering are often exaggerated or misrepresented, GE crops do have the potential to cause a variety of health problems and environmental impacts. For instance, they may spread undesirable traits to weeds and non-GE crops, produce new allergens and toxins, or harm animals that consume them." The latter part of the sentence is exactly what is "often exaggerated or misrepresented". fake balance. not reasonable.
  • right under that is a link to the "Risks of Genetic Engineering" where again they first give a mumbly nod to "there are no real risks" and then they jump into Seralini-like "It is also an exaggeration, however, to state that there are no health risks associated with GE. For one thing, not enough is known: research on the effects of specific genes has been limited—and tightly controlled by the industry." If you actually understand genetic engineering and food, like actual scientists do, you know that there is no plausible mechanism by which commercially-oriented genetic engineering of crops - with all the testing they do - is going to cause harm. yet they plunge ahead and talk up the dangers of potential allergens being introduced - which is a well-known risk and tested-for like crazy. it is just exasperating.
  • their claim that " Policy decisions about the use of GE have too often been driven by biotech industry public relations campaigns, rather than by what science tells us about the most cost-effective ways to produce abundant food and preserve the health of our farmland." is a statement that has completely swallowed the kool aid that biotech companies somehow "own" the discourse. They do not. You have to work your ass off to learn facts about GMOs as this article in the NY TImes aptly described. the anti-GMO world owns the public discourse, and it is only because regulators in the US are actually science-driven that ag bioech is as advanced as it is in the US.
  • their focus on Monsanto is also right inline with the anti-GMO crowd. They make Monsanto their badboy. forget bayer, syngenta, etc. in my view, this is probably the key "tell" for what is driving them. it is not objective science, it is the anti-GMO discourse that they are just following along with.
  • i could go on but i will stop. at every chance they get, they do emphasize the risks in a way that is not reasonable and that mainstream science does not follow. I completely understand their concern about monoculture and sustainability but their "concern" about genetic engineering is not scientifically stated nor based in mainstream science. (oh and did i mention they supported Prop 37?)Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
All very fascinating, and much that you say I agree with...but (and it is a big but)...Your edit states, without references, that they are "opponents of genetically modified food" and they they are "a group opposed to genetic engineering" whereas their own website states "We understand the potential benefits of the technology, and support continued advances in molecular biology, the underlying science...some GE applications could turn out to play a useful role in food production". Please self revert or provided references to back up your assertions. Stacie Croquet (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
i read that the other two times you wrote it. does this satisfy you? please see discussion near the end of this as well. bottom line here is that UCS does concern trolling on GMOs - its pretty ugly. Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Er...no...the bottom line here is that ...Your edit states, without references, that the Union of Concerned Scientists are "opponents of genetically modified food" and they they are "a group opposed to genetic engineering" Indeed your own (2nd) Link states "The Union of Concerned Scientists takes a middle ground, Our major concern about genetic engineering is not its risks but that its over-hyped promises" and your first reference is merely attacking this middle ground stance. Stacie Croquet (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
please respond to what i wrote. especially the last two sources, which are not me saying it, but third parties. and please tell me what actual use of GM crops in the world today they actually support. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, UoCS is considered a fringe group per WP:FRINGE. I can't recall if it's been discussed somewhere in the archives in this page or a related one, but it was some time ago. Either way, we don't really give the time of day with such organizations, so I don't really see this conversation going anywhere to improve the article because we don't represent the opinions of fringe groups. I'd do a little digging if I had time this week, so if someone else recalls a similar conversation, feel free to link it here to help Stacie out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Please tell me what actual use of GM crops in the world today they actually support, Well, not that that I see the relevance, but I was curious: Virus-resistant GE papaya has prevented substantial yield loss...I've also trawled through the Archives...think that fringe discussion was somewhere else...but I did note this...The verifiability policy says:

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'm sure UCS's fringe status make this all the more relevant. ...But the bottom line remains that this edit needs to be reverted Stacie Croquet (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

If you want to restore we really do need to cite some, any article as evidence of their opposition. Stacie Croquet (talk) 18:42, 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)

this was settled a month ago. there are boatloads of refs for it now. UCS has been opposing what they see as too-cozy regulators since the 1990s and continues to concern troll. Please read the sources that are there. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotection

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014

This edit request 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 genetic 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)

done, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Substantial Equivalence

I took out the statement:

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.

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)

I provided the reason for my reversion in my edit note, here. let me know what is not clear there. thanks for pointing out the dead link. fixed that. Added another source, with quote: "The guiding principle in the evaluation of BD foods by regulatory agencies in Europe and the U.S. is that their human and environmental safety is most effectively considered, relative to comparable products and processes currently in use. From this arises the concept of 'substantial equivalence.'" It is not a policy, and this article does not call it a policy. it is a principle. Please react to what the article actually says. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
with regard to South Africa: The South African Department of Health states that: " assessments are done case-by-case and step-by-step. As with all new experiences comparisons with known foods are constantly made. This approach, which is the stating point for risk assessment of genetically modified food, is often called substantial equivalency". Source: Fikremarkos Merso Birhanu. Gentically Modified Organisms in Africa: Regulating a Threat or Opportunity? Chapter 9 (pp 227-253) in The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Approaches. Eds Luc Bodiguel, Michael Cardwell. Oxford University Press, 2010 ISBN 9780199542482. page. 241
Canada does the same. see Jane Matthews Glenn. The Coexistence of Genetically Modified and Non-genetially modified Agriculture in Canada: A Courtroom Drama. Chapter 10 (pp 254-273) in The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Approaches. Eds Luc Bodiguel, Michael Cardwell. Oxford University Press, 2010 ISBN 9780199542482. page. 266
Mercosur also uses the principle. See Rosario Silva Gilli. Genetically Modified Organisms in MERCOSUR. Chapter 11 (pp 274-298) in The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Approaches. Eds Luc Bodiguel, Michael Cardwell. Oxford University Press, 2010 ISBN 9780199542482. page 283 Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
same book, different chapter, more generally: See Margaret Rosso Grossman. Genetically Modified Crops and Food in the United States: The Federal Regulatory Framework, State Measures, and Liability in Tort. Chapter 12 (pp 299-336) in The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Approaches. Eds Luc Bodiguel, Michael Cardwell. Oxford University Press, 2010 ISBN 9780199542482. pp 311-312 which says: "In its 1992 Policy Statement, the FDA indicated that the scientific concepts described 'are consistent with the concepts of substantial equivalence of new foods' articulated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and principles for assessment of food safety established by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Substantial equivalence is 'regulatory shorthand for defining those new foods that do not raise safety issues that require special, intensive, case by case scutiny. It is "an internationally recognized standard that measures whether a biotech food or crop shares similar health and nutritional characteristics with its conventional counterpart". Substantial equivalence is not a safety assessment, Instead, it is a "comparative approach and embodies the idea that existing traditionally produced foods can serve as a reference to evaluate the safety of genetically modified foods."
It is not a policy - it is principle used globally as a starting point for regulatory assessment, as our article says. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional references. I did some additional searching specifically on E.U. for substantial equivalence, and it appears to be a part of the process for GMO's:
"The term substantial equivalence is also referred to in the Regulation(EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients which came into force in the member states of the European Union on 15 May 1997."
* * *
"This procedure does not apply to novel foods containing, or consisting of, GMOs. For the placing on the market of this category of novel foods, authorisations are mandatory, even if the result of the safety assessment may prove their substantial equivalence to conventional foods."
http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/349/schauzu.pdf source PDF link
I believe the pertinent EU Reg is:
"Regulation (EC) No 258/97 also provides for a notification procedure for novel foods which are substantially equivalent to existing foods. Whilst substantial equivalence is a key step in the procedure for assessment of the safety of genetically modified foods, it is not a safety assessment in itself. In order to ensure clarity, transparency and a harmonised framework for authorisation of genetically modified food, this notification procedure should be abandoned in respect of genetically modified foods" source link
I have no idea if the link I provides is of a draft, actual Reg that was passed, or an older version that has been changed. For now, I will assume that indeed the "substantial equivalence" explained in these two documents I just dug up is part of the process of the E.U. approval in addition to, and not instead of, all of the other additional mandated testing described that is not required in the U.S.
So I understand the defense of the above line about "substantial equivalence" now. The line may indeed be technically correct, but it is part of a bigger problem, that I am trying to address: lack of NPOV, lack of balance and that it is slanted. I see another user raised this issue and was quickly scared off by Jytdog. That user's objections were on point--unfortunately, they were just archived, so I will try to resurrect some of those concerns. I will start a new topic on these issues and see if progress can be made to address the major problems the user raised, which have not been addressed. I am sad that new user, who probably did not understand the process well enough to stick around, is no longer with us and will not be able to participate in the discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
glad this one is laid to rest. my sense is, that as with this one, when you dig into the next specific thing, you will find that the article as it stands is on point. it's the same process i went through, anyway. if you find something wrong we can of course work to fix it. the article is better now, with stronger sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Categories: