Revision as of 06:37, 15 February 2015 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Substantial Equivalence: r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:28, 17 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,011 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] | ||
(692 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
{{Round in circles}} | |||
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} | |||
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} | |||
{{talk header}} | |||
{{Old peer review|archive=1}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|genetics=yes|genetics-importance=mid|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}} | |||
{{WikiProject Food and drink|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Agriculture|importance=Mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Health and fitness|importance=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=Mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}} | |||
}} | |||
{{GMORFC notice}} | |||
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 12 | ||
|minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(30d) | ||
|archive = Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=21 |units=days }} | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1= | |||
{{WikiProject Genetics|class=C|importance=mid|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}} | |||
{{WikiProject Food and drink|class=B|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Economics|class=c|importance=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Agriculture|class=c|importance=low}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |index= /Archive index |bot= MiszaBot III |age= 21 |collapsible=yes}} | |||
== 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. {{unsigned|Fernando Aleman G |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 ]) If you ever run into that problem again look in the body of the article! ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Does UCS have a position on GE? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::They State "" ] (]) 00:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} They do all the moves typical of the anti-GMO movement: | |||
* 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 ] or of . 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 "" 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 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?)] (]) 01:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::All very fascinating, and much that you say I agree with...but (and it is a big but)... whereas their own website states "". Please self revert or provided references to back up your assertions. ] (]) 07:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::i read that the other two times you wrote it. does satisfy you? please see discussion near the end of . bottom line here is that UCS does ] on GMOs - its pretty ugly. ] (]) 08:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::Er...no...the bottom line here is that ... 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::Just as an FYI, UoCS is considered a fringe group per ]. 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. ] (]) 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: ...I've also trawled through the Archives...think that fringe discussion was somewhere else...but I did note this...''] says:'' | |||
{{quotation|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 ] (]) 18:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
: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. ] (]) 03:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |index= /Archive index |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age= 21 |collapsible=yes}} | |||
== Semiprotection == | |||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== | |||
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. ] (] '''·''' ]) 06:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. | |||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 22:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}} | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014 == | |||
== POW notability == | |||
{{ping|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 ]. | |||
Your attempt to throw {{tq|FRINGE}} around: ] exists. I was unaware. It is not linked anywhere in this article {{endash}} 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. 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. ] (]) 27 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
{{edit semi-protected|Genetically modified food controversies|answered=yes}} | |||
<!-- Begin request --> | |||
just pointing out the "g" is left out of the hyperlink "genetic use restriction technology". | |||
::I was similarly unaware of the existence of ]. I've added it to the 'see also' section. With regard to content some editors view as 'Fringe' - if you have 2+ independent reliable sources covering a given statement / view, believe it is notable, and face 'fringe' objections, opening a ] can help to bring in outside opinions on whether the content should be included.] (]) 01:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
One way to avoid environmental contamination is g] (GURT), also | |||
:Invasive Spices, this is about a basic edit from , so please watch the tone and slow down. Either way, the Prince Charles quote is from 1998 and not particularly due, even for a ] viewpoint. If there are areas where sources have dedicated some significant time to looking at fringe views associated with religion in this subject, that would be something to discuss, but none of these sources listed are doing that. It's definitely a subject where you'd want review-level sources pointing out what the major issues actually are vs. one-off quotes, blogs, etc. ] (]) 01:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
::Hard to see how this is a reply to what I said, on ''GM & religion'', and not just banging the same drum over and over. There is nothing wrong with my tone and hitting out because I attempted to discuss here on Talk: is a ''very'' interesting choice. Overall you're simply banging the same drum. As it stands I will wait for some time, gloss ] as a new section here, and add the same text there in stead of here along with the Cardinal's statements. If you want to revert again, against relevant, cited text, from some of the most prominent people in the world I cannot stop you. ] (]) 28 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
:The position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England is mostly ceremonial. None of the "Religious views on genetically modified foods" are actually religious views. Charles' views on GMO are no different from his views on other intensive farming methods and are based on his concerns for the environment. Otherwise, objections to GMO among some religious leaders has been based on its effects on farmers. ] (]) 03:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
::{{tq|ceremonial}} Yes 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. ] (]) 28 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::In that case everything that Charles, William and George said would be notable because they will have a ceremonial role as heads of the Anglican Church. Note also that they are heirs to the thrones of 15 countries and Charles is set to become head of the Commonwealth. Whether or not anything they say is relevant depends on its coverage in realtion to coverage of the topic. ] (]) 21:53, 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. <ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00027640021956279</ref> | |||
it should be | |||
{{reflist-talk}} | |||
One way to avoid environmental contamination is ] (GURT), also | |||
<!-- End request --> | |||
] (]) 02:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
:done, thanks! ] (]) 02:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Public perception == | ||
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: | |||
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. | |||
* | |||
* | |||
Mostly just leaving these in case I don't get to it later and someone else wants to craft content ] (]) 14:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
==Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Digital Humanities Spring 2024== | |||
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. | |||
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Kansas_State_University/Introduction_to_Digital_Humanities_Spring_2024_(Spring) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2024-01-15 | end_date = 2024-05-10 }} | |||
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
This policy is not used in the E.U. See: ]. | |||
GMO regulation varies widely by country. See: ] | |||
] (]) 18:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I provided the reason for my reversion in my edit note, . 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. ] (]) 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 | |||
::] 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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." | |||
:::: | |||
:::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" | |||
:::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 <i>not</i> 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.] (]) 06:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::glad this one is laid to rest. ] (]) 06:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 15:28, 17 July 2024
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. |
|
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: 30 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. |
view · edit Frequently asked questions
To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.
Q1: Is the article biased?
A1: Misplaced Pages’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.
Further information: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view § Undue weight
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 Misplaced Pages article describing the scientific consensus, and the sourcing for it, was reviewed by the Misplaced Pages community in an open request for comment on three separate occasions. The first RfC (July–August 2013) evaluated a previous version of the language, concluding that that the statement and sourcing complied with Misplaced Pages'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, and after considerable discussion ultimately led to a third RfC during June-July 2016. This resulted in the language currently used across Misplaced Pages 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.
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 Misplaced Pages’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. |
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 article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple 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 Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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)
POW notability
@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. 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)
- I was similarly unaware of the existence of Religious views on genetically modified foods. I've added it to the 'see also' section. With regard to content some editors view as 'Fringe' - if you have 2+ independent reliable sources covering a given statement / view, believe it is notable, and face 'fringe' objections, opening a WP:RFC can help to bring in outside opinions on whether the content should be included.Dialectric (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Invasive Spices, this is about a basic edit from over 2 months ago, so please watch the tone and slow down. Either way, the Prince Charles quote is from 1998 and not particularly due, even for a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. If there are areas where sources have dedicated some significant time to looking at fringe views associated with religion in this subject, that would be something to discuss, but none of these sources listed are doing that. It's definitely a subject where you'd want review-level sources pointing out what the major issues actually are vs. one-off quotes, blogs, etc. KoA (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hard to see how this is a reply to what I said, on GM & religion, and not just banging the same drum over and over. There is nothing wrong with my tone and hitting out because I attempted to discuss here on Talk: is a very interesting choice. Overall you're simply banging the same drum. As it stands I will wait for some time, gloss Religious views on genetically modified foods as a new section here, and add the same text there in stead of here along with the Cardinal's statements. If you want to revert again, against relevant, cited text, from some of the most prominent people in the world I cannot stop you. Invasive Spices (talk) 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- The position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England is mostly ceremonial. None of the "Religious views on genetically modified foods" are actually religious views. Charles' views on GMO are no different from his views on other intensive farming methods and are based on his concerns for the environment. Otherwise, objections to GMO among some religious leaders has been based on its effects on farmers. TFD (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
ceremonial
Yes 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)- In that case everything that Charles, William and George said would be notable because they will have a ceremonial role as heads of the Anglican Church. Note also that they are heirs to the thrones of 15 countries and Charles is set to become head of the Commonwealth. Whether or not anything they say is relevant depends on its coverage in realtion to coverage of the topic. TFD (talk) 21:53, 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.
References
Public perception
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:
- Examining the Gap between Science and Public Opinion about Genetically Modified Food and Global Warming
- Changes in perceived scientific consensus shift beliefs about climate change and GM food safety
- Monetizing disinformation in the attention economy: The case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
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)
Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Digital Humanities Spring 2024
This article was 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)
Categories:- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class Molecular Biology articles
- Unknown-importance Molecular Biology articles
- C-Class Genetics articles
- Mid-importance Genetics articles
- WikiProject Genetics articles
- All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
- C-Class Food and drink articles
- Mid-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- C-Class Economics articles
- Low-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- C-Class Agriculture articles
- Mid-importance Agriculture articles
- WikiProject Agriculture articles
- C-Class Health and fitness articles
- Low-importance Health and fitness articles
- WikiProject Health and fitness articles
- C-Class Environment articles
- Mid-importance Environment articles
- C-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- C-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics