Misplaced Pages

Talk:Genetically modified food: 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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:51, 25 June 2014 editFlorian Blaschke (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,783 edits "For related content" hatnote: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:51, 23 April 2024 edit undoMichaelhurwicz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users808 edits extraneous "12" under "European Regulation": new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Controversial}}
{{WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology|importance=top|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Genetics|class=B|importance=high}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Food and drink|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|b6=yes|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Molecular Biology|genetics=yes|genetics-importance=high|MCB=yes|MCB-importance=top}}
{{WPFarm|class=B|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Food and drink|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Invention|class=B}} {{WikiProject Agriculture|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Invention}}
}}
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=Mid}}
{{ WAP assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:United States Education Program/Courses/Interdisciplinary Applications of Biology (Candace Timpte) | university = Georgia Gwinnett College | term = 2011 Q3 | ended=yes }}
{{Archive box |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index |search=yes|
*]
*]
*]
*]
}} }}
{{Copied|from=Food biotechnology|to=Genetically modified food|date=January 1, 2014}}
{{GMORFC notice}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 5 |counter = 18
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(30d)
|minthreadsleft = 3
|archive = Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
Line 24: Line 22:
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
}} }}

{{Copied|from=Food biotechnology|to=Genetically modified food|date=January 1, 2014}}
{{Archive box |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index |search=yes|
}}


__TOC__ __TOC__


== Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program assignment ==
== Time limit needed on RfC and "broad scientific consensus"? ==
This article was the subject of an ] at Georgia Gwinnett College supported by the ]&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available ].]

Shouldn't a date be specified in the claim that, "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food" and in the accompanying ]? That RfC ran from July to September 2013. For example, shouldn't the statement read something more like "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market as of mid-2013 and derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food"? Or make it two sentences like, "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food; this does not include foods introduced since mid-2013"?

To what extent might that "broad scientific consensus" extend to GM foods introduced since the most recent scientific article reviewed during that period?

For example, does that consensus include , currently under ] (]) 19:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
:I think a date will inaccurately give the impression that the consensus has changed, when we'd be better off changing the wording outright if that consensus were to change. ] (]) 19:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
:That would give the implication that the consensus has changed when there is no evidence that it has. When and if evidence exists that the consensus has changed, then the appropriate changes would be made. ] (]) 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
:Interesting point. The scientific consensus is based on a few different things, but primarily it is based on an understanding of the biology involved in making a GM crop, the DNA and proteins involved, the key kinds of toxicity that are possible, and the regulatory process (which looks for those toxicities, and others). So anything that makes it through the regulatory process is therefore just like everything that came before, safety-wise. And there has still been no compelling experiment done, or finding made, that overturns any of the things upon which the consensus is based (things like "electron-microscope organisms' are pseudoscience that don't affect mainstream science). It would take something like that to make it worthwhile to date the consensus - some event that actually changed the consensus. ] (]) 00:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

== "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food" ==

Let me put it right up-front: I admit I am no expert on GMO food. But I am scientist and know how to dig scientific literature. Searching the literature for an hour or so, I do not find any broad scientific consensus that GMO is safe; rather, I found there is some controversy, and that some GMO foods are considered safe, while others are not. Moreover, some foods have not been extensively tested or need to be tested longer.

Please read, consider, and take a stance, on e.g., this review, in particular the 'Final remarks' therein if you're in a hurry:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412011000055

How can one state in this Misplaced Pages article that there is a broad scientific consensus? In the light of (even) one article (above), I must conclude: the statement quoted in the subject/headline is false. According to the article there is rather a 1:1 '''I'd like to ask the editor of the article to have a look at this.
''' and consider that this wikipedia article is not neutrally written.

Let me quote from above review:
"However, it is important to remark that for the
first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups
suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of
GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious
as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still
serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that
most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional
and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been
performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also
responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this
represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies
published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies
(Domingo, 2007). The scientific community may finally be able to
critically evaluate and discuss all that information, which was not
possible until now. Scientists know quite well how different may be
the information published in reputed international journals, which
has been submitted to peer-review processes, from those general
comments/reports not submitted to this selective procedure.
"
:This issue has been talked to death. Please review the Talk page above, and the archives. We even had a Request for Comment on it, which you can read . ] (]) 21:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
: Of course, I've read that. Apparently no consensus in the discussion came out, and frankly, I didn't find the discussions very helpful, but rather of semantic nature. The quotation I inserted above is from a peer-reviewed, scientific journal, and is a REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS on the topic; it is not, in comparison as quoted somewhere in the Talk page, from some unreliable news report. Broad agreement and consensus means something else. It would be good if people who make claims about scientific literature actually read it. Sorry for being so direct -- please do not misunderstand, I do not mean to attack with this. In conclusion: we clearly have a scientific review of scientific literature, summarizing findings about research on the safety of GMO food: conclusions are that the effects from GMO food in general are unclear, and that much literature is clearly biased. This is hardly reflected in the phrase 'there is broad scientific consensus'. BTW, Talking something to death does not imply the problem was solved! :-) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::You seem to think that ] means unanimity. It does not mean unanimity.] (]) 18:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:::To put Domingo in context of the wider scientific community, see articles like and as well as the many sources that are provided in support of the statement of consensus. ] (]) 19:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:: I do certainly NOT mean unanimity. Since you like to use Misplaced Pages itself for definitions, let me quote: "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity." So, I mean consensus in the way it's written black on white here: as a general agreement, implying that (at least) 50% scientists believe that. I do not see that this is the case, in particular when referring to the review above.
:: Thanks for the references. As I see it, many scientists, according to the Nature article, think that many studies allow not to make strong conclusions as of the safety of GMO. I just see that many scientists agree that they cannot tell what possible long term effects are? If that's what you understand under 'broad scientific consensus that GMO food is not more harmful than normal food', fine. It just seems to me worth pointing out that long-term effects are unknown, and I don't see that the Misplaced Pages article is representative of this statement. Correct me if I missed this somewhere. {{unsigned|134.76.222.49|22:00, 28 March 2014 UTC}}
::: we don't know the long term effects of eating '''any''' food. please think about that, and what that means. Please also see article, especially the section starting in the 2nd column, called "Selection of chemicals to be ranked." ] (]) 14:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

===Continuation of discussion above===

I second this article is not neutrally written. 'Some' instead of 'broad' would be much more appropriate <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:"Some" would imply a lack of scientific consensus and therefore would be ]. Please show ], preferably ] supporting your assertions. ] (]) 08:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

::Here's one. 'Scientific uncertainty and ambiguity, omitted research areas, and lack of basic knowledge crucial to risk assessments have become apparent'

::And another 'Increased levels of aflatoxins in DT maize will lead to increased toxicity for consumers' under the section requiring consideration.

::And another 'The sex differences and the non linear dose or time related effects should be considered in contrast to the claims of a Monsanto-supported expert panel about a GMO, the MON 863 Bt maize, but also for pesticides or drugs, in particular to reveal hormone-dependent diseases and first signs of toxicities.'

::And 'We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, '''possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn'''. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification '''cannot be excluded'''.' <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::Hi, 67.201.229.58, the Myhr/ Traavik dates from 2002 and as per MEDRS we use recent sources where we can. The two other sources are from Seralini and are discussed at length in the ] article, as well as in the ] article. They are not mainstream scientific positions. Please do see the the sources already provided in this article in support of the statement about the scientific consensus, and please do see the RfC we had on whether this statement is appropriate in Misplaced Pages, ''based on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines'', which you can read . Nothing has changed with regard to studies published in the scientific literature since last summer, that would change the scientific consensus. I do acknowledge, very clearly, that there is a lot of public sentiment that GM food is dangerous. That public sentiment does not reflect the scientific consensus, which is that currently marketed GM food is as as safe as conventional food. ] (]) 11:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)\

:::: Hi, Would you consider this one main stream? 'Thus, the finding of human effects consistent with impaired retinoic signaling in agricultural areas with heavy RoundUp use raises concern about the potential health effects of heavy herbicide usage. Although these studies do not prove that RoundUp/glyphosate creates unwarranted human risks, they '''raise significant concerns'''.' It has been stated in the other article ] that genetically modified foods have lead to a increase in RoundUp use so even if the actually GM crop is safe, to say the food on the market doesn't pose a greater risk doesn't seem accurate. My professor was actually impressed that instead of turning in my paper on GM crops that I instead was editing Misplaced Pages :)] (]) 17:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Gabe

:::::Hi, as I wrote on your Talk page, please slow down, take your time, and learn how things work here, in terms of policies and guidelines. More on point, please read the many, many sources we have provided (and there are even more supporting the consensus statement in the ] article), and please read the RfC (request for comment) that I linked to above, which validated the consensus statement and its sources, based on WP policies and guidelines. I recognize that there are LOTS of websites out there that preach a very black-and-white and negative picture of GM food. There is a lot of passion, and a lot of ignorance, and a lot of exaggeration out there. Real world, the mainstream scientific community recognizes that a) conventional food is not 100% safe (nothing is); b) food derived from currently marketed GM crops is not substantially different from conventional food, and there is no legitimate theory as to why it might be. With respect to human exposure to any herbicide or pesticide while it is being used in the field, that is not relevant to exposure you get from eating food derived from GM crops, and the consensus statement doesn't speak to that - that is ''off topic.'' With respect to pesticide residues on food - pesticide residues on food are regulated, and the exposure you get to glyphosate and other pesticides through eating food has been studied, and levels set that are dramatically lower than levels that are dangerous. (that is not to say that rarely - from time to time - levels exceed regulation, and when they do, there is trouble). And in any case most food derived from GM crops is highly processed and just a part of the actual food you eat -- sugar from GM sugar beets is highly refined pure sucrose, just like sugar from conventional sugar beets. Soy, corn, cottonseed.. all are (of course) washed before they are processed into milled grain or oil or what have you. Please slow down, and think carefully. I get it that you find the scientific consensus statement jarring; that it is new to you doesn't make it wrong. Until you have caught up with the sources that are actually used here, and with the RfC and past discussions, please don't just grab random arguments and sources and throw them at the statement. Please catch up with the discussion. Thanks!] (]) 18:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::I didn't speak to your source with the dissenters to the AAAS statement. Yep, there are dissenters from the consensus. There always are, and the fact that they exist doesn't change the fact that there is a consensus. As I wrote above, the consensus is very solidly grounded based on the actual science that has been to date, and no science has emerged to change it. The Seralini 2012 paper ~could have~ been consensus-changing had that study been done soundly (or could have backed the consensus!) but we will never know b/c the data is basically not interpretable. Other long-term feeding studies are underway, more rigorously designed, and they might show us something. But as of 2014 there is no good evidence that food from currently marketed GM crops is harmful, and more importantly no good hypotheses to explain why it would be. Please do ''not'' bring arguments as to why some theoretical product might be harmful (e.g. "could cause allergy") - the risks in the technology are understood and those kinds of things are tested for, before products are put on the market. The consensus statement is about currently marketed food from GM crops - not about any theoretical GM crop that could be made.] (]) 18:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

== Labelling ==

today ] added content on labelling in ]. I moved that content in part into the ] article in and in part (as there was duplication) into the ] article, in . This reason for this is ]. Both the Regulation and Controversies articles are very very long, and we have worked hard to edit these articles so they are well organized and synced, and cover all the relevant issues. There is constant temptation to add material to this article but such efforts often bring detail that doesn't rise to the Lead of the split articles and so shouldn't be here either. Hope this makes sense; happy to discuss. ] (]) 11:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

==Wheat==

There is no mention whatsoever of wheat in the article. Wheat is modified to withstand herbicides, pesticides and drought. Seems to me that would increase our ingestion of poison in our diet, since wheat is in so many processed foods. Besides that, GMO wheat products spike blood sugar faster than eating pure sugar.] (]) 21:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:It is my understanding that there is no GM wheat on the market, at all, and there never has been. So nGM wheat is not in anyone's diet to cause any kind of sugar spike. If you have any reliable sources for GM wheat actually being on the market, or for any effects on humans who eat GM wheat, I would be very very interested to see them and would be happy to incorporate that information and sources into the article. ] (]) 21:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
*Jytdog is correct. No GM wheat is on the market at the moment. It has undergone lots of selective breeding breeding, which some people might consider genetic modification, but this does not apply to the definition we use here. It is being developed for various traits though and may arrive in the future. BTW I don't beleive any crops have been released commercially that are drought resistant. ]&nbsp;] 05:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
::hey ] actually Monsanto has a drought-resistant corn on the market, called droughtgard - here is a . ] (]) 15:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Interesting. Take a break from this area for a couple of months and something new comes out. Is it the maize that curls its leaves? We should probably mention it somewhere. ]&nbsp;] 03:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
::::It is a cold shock protein. Mentioned ] and ]. :) ] (]) 04:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

== FDA policy on labels ==

{{ping|Jytdog}} requested discussion of my change from:

:''no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the US FDA.''
to:
:''no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is required by the US FDA, as long as there are no differences in health, environmental safety, and consumer expectations based on the packaging.''

The original text sounded to me like it was implying the FDA has a blanket policy that there is no difference between GMO and non-GMO foods, so it doesn't test them and doesn't require labelling. I did not do a very good job clarifying, so here's a second try. Maybe what we want to say is:

:''In the United States, the ] has no general requirement that GMO foods must be labelled as such. Its policy is to require a specific label if there is a specific difference material to health, environment, or consumer expectations, but it has not found any such difference in any GMO food currently approved for sale in the U.S.

The parts of the referenced source I have in mind are:


{{small|Above message substituted from {{tlc|WAP assignment}} on 15:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)}}
:''The FDCA Section 403(a)(1) states that a food is misbranded if its labeling is untrue or misleading, whereas Section 201(n) states that a label is misleading if it fails to reveal “material facts” about a product. Material facts have been interpreted by the FDA to mean (1) changes in health or environmental safety posed by the product, (2) statements that might mislead the consumer in light of other information on the label, and (3) a food label that might cause a consumer to expect that the product closely resembles a food product from which it differs in one or more significant characteristics. The FDA would require labels on products that demonstrably pose novel hazards that might affect safety or have significant unexpected differences in composition. These are material facts. In contrast, production methods that create no material difference in products require no special labeling.''


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
:''The FDA has stated that it has no basis for finding that GE foods “differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding” (USFDA 1992). Therefore, since GE production methods create no material difference in products, no label is required for GE foods. In the two decades since this initial finding, the FDA has not encountered any evidence or data that have caused it to change its position despite having reviewed regulatory packages on more than one hundred GE events (Herman and Price 2013). If a new GE process changed a product such that it differed significantly from its conventional counterpart, the FDA could require labeling for those specific qualities. For instance, since high omega-3 and high oleic vegetable oils differ significantly in composition from their conventional counterparts, the FDA could require that these oils be labeled—not because they were produced using GE, but because there is a material difference in the oil products. The FDA could also require labeling for potential allergenicity if the food contained a novel allergen that a consumer would not expect to be present in a specific type of food. As an example, if a peanut protein was inserted into a tomato, the product would need to be labeled to warn individuals allergic to peanuts that the GE tomato may present an allergenic risk unless the developer could demonstrate that there was no allergy risk from that peanut gene. To date, no GE products have required such a specific label.''
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-01-29">29 January 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-03-08">8 March 2019</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 21:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
:''the food safety of GE crops and animals, and ingredients derived from them, has been reviewed by the FDA prior to introduction of all new GE varieties commercialized to date''


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
Any thoughts? -- ] (]) 21:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-10-04">4 October 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-12-09">9 December 2021</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ].
:Thanks for talking! I see what you are saying about the existing language, and I understand your desire to improve it. The quote we provide in the ref is "To date, no material differences in composition or safety of commercialized GE crops have been identified that would justify a label based on the GE nature of the product." The current text says "Although labeling of genetically modified organism (GMO) products in the marketplace is required in 64 countries, it is not required in the United States and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the US FDA." SO how about the last part be changed to: ", it is not required in the United States law, and the FDA has found no differences in the composition or safety of currently marketed GM food that would justify a label based on the product's origin." Does that work for you? Thanks again. ] (]) 22:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 21:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
::went with "in the United States, there is general requirement that GMO foods must be labelled as such. The FDA's policy is to require a specific label if there are significant differences in composition or differences that are material to health, but it has not found any such differences in any GMO food currently approved for sale." ] (]) 22:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


== extraneous "12" under "European Regulation" ==
:::Jytdog, are you sure you didn't mean, "in the United States, there is '''no''' general requirement that GMO foods must be labelled as such"? I'm not aware of any general requirement for labeling GMO foods here, so I'm assuming that was just a typo/missing word? ] (]) 23:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


There is an extraneous "12" under "European Regulation"
::::wow, that was a boner. Thanks!! ] (]) 00:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


12 The EU law regulates
== "For related content" hatnote ==


Perhaps this was meant to be a reference? ] (]) 14:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I've never seen such a hatnote on any other article. It is blatantly opposed to Misplaced Pages style conventions; essentially a "See also" list of associative links disguised as a hatnote. "Genetically modified food" is ]. There is no reason to present people with links to related content at this prominent position, which is specifically to guide readers who are likely to have arrived at the wrong article. ] specifically discourages hatnotes merely linking to related content, and does not mention any exceptions. Therefore, I have removed the hatnote again. --] (]) 00:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
:Thank you for finally opening a discussion. There is a suite of related articles on GM matters. A few years ago these articles were a complete mess, with much overlapping content (most of negative anti-GMO stuff). A group of us went through and cleaned them up and sorted content to minimize overlap. We put the hatnotes at the top of''each article in the suite of articles'' to help people who would edit content related to one back in to the wrong one, get to the right place. This is about editing Misplaced Pages to keep articles well-related to one another - not just about editing a single article. It has been stable for a couple of years now - you are the first person in ages who has made any objection. It works. We should keep it, so that it can continue working. I acknowledge that this is a discussion of preferences - there is no policy or guideline that governs this. ] (]) 01:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
::] ''is'' a guideline or even policy, and it is ''completely unambiguous''. Hatnotes are for ''readers'', not editors. If there are problems with people adding misplaced content, what we do is insert a HTML comment at the beginning that is visible only to editors. If the problem is really getting out of hand, locking the article (and, if necessary, related articles) at least for non-established users needs to be considered, or alternatively pending changes. I see no reason at all for this unique misuse of hatnotes. Alternatively, maybe this is an indication that the articles should be merged because the subjects overlap too much. --] (]) 15:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:51, 23 April 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetically modified food 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: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMolecular Biology: Genetics / MCB
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconFood and drink High‑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
HighThis article has been rated as High-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.
WikiProject iconAgriculture Mid‑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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInvention
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention 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.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEnvironment Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Text and/or other creative content from Food biotechnology was copied or moved into Genetically modified food on January 1, 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Orange stop-hand iconThe 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).
Language per the RfC

There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. 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.

Citations
  1. Nicolia, Alessandro; Manzo, Alberto; Veronesi, Fabio; Rosellini, Daniele (2013). "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" (PDF). Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 34: 1–12. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. PMID 24041244. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.

    The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.

  2. "State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).
  3. Ronald, Pamela (May 5, 2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics. 188: 11–20. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMC 3120150. PMID 21546547. There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010).
  4. But see also:

    Domingo, José L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Giné (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37: 734–742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.

    Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40: 1–32. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.

    And contrast:

    Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology: 1–5. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN 0738-8551. PMID 26767435. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.

    The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.

    and
    Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96: 1851–1855. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID 26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011).

    Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

    Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome."

  5. "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. October 20, 2012. Retrieved February 8, 2016. The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: 'The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.' The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.

    Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could 'Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers'". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 8, 2016.

  6. "A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010)" (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union. 2010. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. Retrieved February 8, 2016.
  7. "AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)". American Medical Association. January 2001. Retrieved March 19, 2016. A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from online summary prepared by ISAAA)" "Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from original report by AMA: )

    "Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Retrieved March 19, 2016. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.

  8. "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs.
  9. "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects". The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). 2016. p. 149. Retrieved May 19, 2016. Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts.
  10. "Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods". World Health Organization. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

    GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

  11. Haslberger, Alexander G. (2003). "Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects". Nature Biotechnology. 21: 739–741. doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. PMID 12833088. These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.
  12. Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle: "Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved March 21, 2016. 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. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.

    When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.

    The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.

  13. Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee (January 29, 2015). "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society". Pew Research Center. Retrieved February 24, 2016. The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.
  14. Marris, Claire (2001). "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths". EMBO Reports. 2: 545–548. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142. PMC 1083956. PMID 11463731.
  15. Final Report of the PABE research project (December 2001). "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe". Commission of European Communities. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
  16. Scott, Sydney E.; Inbar, Yoel; Rozin, Paul (2016). "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 11 (3): 315–324. doi:10.1177/1745691615621275. PMID 27217243.
  17. "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
  18. Bashshur, Ramona (February 2013). "FDA and Regulation of GMOs". American Bar Association. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
  19. Sifferlin, Alexandra (October 3, 2015). "Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs". Time.
  20. Lynch, Diahanna; Vogel, David (April 5, 2001). "The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved February 24, 2016.



Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Georgia Gwinnett College supported by the Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 8 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashleyatnyu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TFMonk19970531.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

extraneous "12" under "European Regulation"

There is an extraneous "12" under "European Regulation"

12 The EU law regulates

Perhaps this was meant to be a reference? Michael Hurwicz (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Categories: