Revision as of 15:06, 1 March 2015 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →No so-called "scientific consensus": r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:09, 12 October 2024 edit undoIxocactus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,321 edits Reverted 1 edit by 143.44.184.108 (talk)Tags: Twinkle Undo | ||
(241 intermediate revisions by 80 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{GA|18:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)|topic=Natural Sciences|page=1|oldid=884450884}} | |||
{{notaforum}} | |||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
{{Not a forum}} | |||
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Technology|class=C}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|genetics=yes |genetics-importance=top |imageneeded= |unref=|MCB=yes |MCB-importance=mid |attention=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=high}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Copied|from=Genetic engineering|to=Genetically modified organism|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Genetically_modified_organism&type=revision&diff=854436289&oldid=852502698}} | |||
] | ] | ||
{{GMORFC notice}} | |||
{{WikiProject Genetics|class=C|importance=top|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}}{{Wikiproject MCB|importance=mid|class=c|attention=yes}} | |||
<!-- auto-archiving for irregular discussions: archive 5 threads when 12 threads are reached --> | <!-- auto-archiving for irregular discussions: archive 5 threads when 12 threads are reached --> | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 4 | ||
|minthreadsleft = 7 | |minthreadsleft = 7 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 5 | |minthreadstoarchive = 5 | ||
Line 14: | Line 22: | ||
|archive = Talk:Genetically modified organism/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Genetically modified organism/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{archives|search=yes}} | |||
==Genetically modified tomatoes are a separate page== | |||
I recently added this to the page for vaccine. More complex plants such as tobacco, potato, tomato and banana, can have genes inserted that cause them to produce vaccines usable for humans. <ref> {{cite journal|last1=Sala|first1=F.|last2=Manuela Rigano|first2=M.|last3=Barbante|first3=A.|last4=Basso|first4=B.|last5=Walmsley|first5=AM|last6=Castiglione|first6=S|journal=Vaccine|date=January 2003|volume=21|issue=7-8|pages=803-8|PMID=23888738|title=Vaccine antigen production in transgenic plants: strategies, gene constructs and perspectives|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12531364|}} </ref> There is a seperate page for genetically modified tomatoes; should there be one for other fruits and vegetables? | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
== objection to a very categorical statement == | |||
"No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food" | |||
Why all controversy then? Anyhow, such a categorical statement needs only 1 counter-example to disapprove it and soften it in the article: | |||
, , | |||
, | |||
In other words, please soften the statement with support from new references, or add a contradictory statement with new references, or remove the statement all-together. Thank you. | |||
] (]) 08:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Not one of those articles documents ill effects in an actual person from eating GM food. The last one, I note, has to do with organic farming and the application of Bt spray - GM crops containing Bt require no spraying of Bt. ] (]) 12:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Agree with {{u|Jytdog}} but he also raises an important distinction: ''"ill effects in an actual person from '''eating''' GM food"''. The article right now states something much more vague and encompassing: ''"No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population '''from''' GM food"''. That "''from''" is too broad and doesn't reflect the current issues with GM crops related pesticides. I'm changing the statement to to a more precise "''No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from '''ingesting''' GM food"''. Regards. ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 13:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::sounds good thanks ] (]) 13:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::I agree with the original objections of user: ] (]). The statement in the article lacks NPOV. The change in the statement by ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> does not correct the problem at all. ] (]) 14:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
== missing class of GMOs in an historical context == | |||
The authors have done an amazing job at keeping this article free from political activism. Its very informative and vey well documented. | |||
I am wondering however, if its still missing the historical context and braoder context. GMOs are not something new. Man has been manipulating the genetics of plants and animals for thousands of years. Maize is an entirely manmade species. The original unmodified species went extinct before the birth of Columbus. Sheep DNA was been so manipulated by man over the last 15,000 years that it can no longer survive on its own. Just because these genetic manipulations did not involve a petri dish, does not mean they didn't result in a GMO. The fact is the DNA of the corn Columbus brought back to Europe was not the same as the DNA of the original species before the residents of the Tehuacan Valley modified it. GMOs are not just created in a lab. ADM has been doing it in the field rows for decades and farmers in Europe have been doing it through selective breeding for centuries before that. By ignoring these "brute" methods and only focusing on the labratory manipulations has allowed the definition of GMOs to be distorted and exploited for political and financial gain by alarmist groups. | |||
If any species' DNA changes because of the intentional actions of man, that makes it a GMO. The method doesn't matter. This is the most powerful arguement that science can make to show that all this recent hype is just that. Hype.] (]) 11:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
::{{done}} Domestication is discussed in the cited Main article, ]. I brought some content in from that article but this is not something to belabor here; folks are mostly concerned with the modern technology. Thanks for your kind words, btw. ] (]) 12:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::I've modified both in the main article and here the statement "''Human '''directed''' genetic modification has been occurring'' to "''Human '''indirected''' genetic modification has been occurring''". Direct manipulation/modification is what we have today. Regards. ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 14:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::as mentioned in my edit notes, "direct" was used verbally (participially to be exact) - the more expanded sentence would have been "genetic modification directed by humans" - the intention was not meant to be "direct" in the sense of "without mediation". i changed these to take out "direct" althogether, and changed to "caused by humans" ] (]) 14:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::The reality is that the breeding of plants and animals by man thousands of years ago hardly constitutes genetic manipulation at all. | |||
Initially, the breeding was very nondiscriminant. For example, they would plant the seeds they had left over from previous crops with no regard to what plants might be the most productive. For example, when the diploid T. tauschii (aka Aegilops squarrosa) contributed a set of chromosomes to the tetraploid wheat, Emmer, to create the first hexaploid wheat, this was hardly the result of any plant breeding effort. Rather, it is a happy accident that occurred under circumstances resulting from the farming practices of the day. | |||
Much, much later the notion of saving the seed from the most productive plants to be planted the next year and consuming the rest started to supplant the first. In spite of that even today many farmers saving seeds are rather indiscriminant about what they sell and what they save unless there is very noticeable differences in the seed. | |||
The practice of intentionally breeding different strains of a crop to produce a new strain is far more recent. By some stretch of the imagination, this could possibly be loosely referred to as being a kind of genetic modification, but the products could hardly be called GMO's. | |||
To try to tie GMOs back to the early breeding of plants and animals is not only misleading, it is quite intellectually dishonest. That it is done with the purpose of trying to water down the term to assuage people's irrational fears of something new doesn't matter. I doubt that it would work, anyway -- there are always too many people who are afraid of anything new. ] (]) 19:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
:as per the ], this is not a general discussion forum on the topic, but rather, a page to discuss the article and changes to it. If you would like to discuss any specific content, please let us know. Thanks. ] (]) 19:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
::I wasn't trying to engage in general discussion. I was trying to point out why claiming (or hinting) that we have been creating GMO's for 10,000 years is incorrect. ] (]) 20:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Is there some specific content in the article that you are suggesting be changed? Thanks. ] (]) 20:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::The first part under "History" needs to make it clear that conventional breeding is not genetic engineering and does not result in GMOs. Language is most useful when it is so sufficiently well defined that when one person uses a term, you don't have to ask them to define their pet definition of the term. I don't see why that first part of the paragraph even needs to be there.] (]) 22:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thank you for making your comments concrete and not general. OK, can you please provide reliable sources (as we define that term in Misplaced Pages - see ]) that 1) there are significant differences in the resulting organism, when it is generated with conventional breeding vs genetic engineering, and 2) that an organism created by conventional breeding has not been genetically modified? We cannot just assert stuff on our own authority on Misplaced Pages (please see ]). I realize that you may find my question frustrating but I am trying to work with you, as we work in Misplaced Pages. Thanks! ] (]) 22:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::At the start of the article, it makes it clear that GMOs are organisms created by using genetic engineering techniques. It's the "History" portion that muddies it up by leaving it open to interpretation that nearly everything can be considered to be GMO. As for whether or not the result from genetic engineering techniques is any different from the result from selective breeding is quite immaterial since GMO is really about the techniques used. One could surely use genetic engineering techniques to produce the same results as conventional plant breeding programs, but that would probably not be very efficient and cost effective. | |||
::::::Also, there is always the possibility that a very foreign gene can be introduced into an organism by "lateral gene transfer" or "horizontal gene transfer". For example, the human genome contains a surprising amount of viral DNA from the Bornaa virus. However, the resulting organism would not be a GMO because it was not the result of genetic engineering techniques. The label GMO is really dependent on how the organism acquired the changes to its genome, not on what changes were made to the genome. | |||
::::::Anyway, here are a few sources: <ref>http://hort201.tamu.edu/YouthAdventureProgram/GeneticEngineering/GeneticEngineering.html</ref>: "So now genetic scientist can change plants and animals by giving them new genes. This is called genetic engineering, which is the manipulation of an organism's genes. If a plant or animal has its genes changed or if it gets new genes by genetic engineering, then it is called a genetically modified organism or GMO." Although that is a page for youths and not highly technical, it is nevertheless quite a nice statement of it. | |||
::::::From <ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gmo</ref>: "genetically modified organism: an organism or microorganism whose genetic material has been altered by means of genetic engineering." | |||
::::::From WHO, the World Health Organization, <ref>http://www.who.int/topics/food_genetically_modified/en/</ref>: "Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g. through the introduction of a gene from a different organism." | |||
::::::I think this one hits the nail on the head. From <ref>http://faq.aces.uiuc.edu/?project_id=28&faq_id=583</ref>: "The acronym GMO stands for "genetically modified organism," and was first used years ago to designate microorganisms that had had genes from other species transferred into their genetic material by the then-new techniques of "gene-splicing." ... Many would argue that the current use of the term "GMO" is much too narrowly constructed, in that it refers more to the process by which genes are introduced rather than to the product. For example, introduction of a truly harmful gene (such as one for a human toxin) into a crop would not result in a "GMO" provided the harmful gene had been found in that crop species. But when a gene is discovered in a microorganism, in another plant species, or in an animal and transferred into a crop plant, the resulting crop cultivar will be designated a "GMO" no matter how benign the transferred gene turns out to be. Some have taken to referring to "GM food" or "GM crops" or "Genetically Enhanced" crops, but most of the world still knows such crops as GMO's." | |||
::::::The same article also distinguishes between crops in which the genes were modified by conventional breeding: "In a real sense, all of the crop cultivars that we use are "genetically modified," in that they were bred to be more productive, more pest resistant, or produce better or different quality of product than did previous cultivars. Such changes, which have been going on ever since crops were domesticated, involve the addition of genes over time, but such additions are with few exceptions from within the same species, or at least the same genus. Such changes also include such things as mutations, even those induced on purpose, as long as they were done within the genus." So even though the genes were modified by conventional breeding, they are not GMOs. As he said, the term GMOs refers to the process by which they got that way, not merely that there was a change in the genome. | |||
::::::Finally, from <ref>http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2772e/y2772e04.htm</ref>: "genetically engineered/modified organisms. The following provisional definition is provided for genetically/modified organisms. Genetically engineered/modified organisms, and products thereof, are produced through techniques in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination." | |||
::::::And for genetic engineering from the site: "Techniques of genetic engineering/modification include, but are not limited to: recombinant DNA, cell fusion, micro and macro injection, encapsulation, gene deletion and doubling. Genetically engineered organisms will not include organisms resulting from techniques such as conjugation, transduction and hybridization." It's not clear to me why this article rules out term "genetic engineering" for conjugation and transduction unless it specifically means conjugation and transduction that occur naturally. | |||
::::::My suggestion would be to remove the first two sentences from the "History" section: "The general principle of producing a GMO is to alter the genetic material of an organism's genome. Genetic modification caused by human activity has been occurring since humans first domesticated animals in 12,000 BC.:1 and plants around 10,000 BC.:1" The first sentence merely restates what is said earlier without the restriction that it is only by modern techniques of genetic engineering and the second is highly misleading because it not only fails to specify that it is only by modern genetic engineering but goes even further and talks about activities thousands of years before the first GMO in the 1970s. If the article does want to talk about animal and plant breeding thousands of years ago, it needs to emphasize that such activities had nothing to do with GMOs. That brings up the question of why to even include the sentence in an article about GMOs unless the specific purpose of the sentence is to make it clear that such changes to the genome did not create GMOs. ] (]) 02:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} I think you are over-reacting a bit... the current text doesn't say that GMOs are created by breeding. It says "The general principle of producing a GMO is to alter the genetic material of an organism's genome. Genetic modification caused by human activity has been occurring since humans first ] animals in 12,000 BC and plants around 10,000 BC. ], the direct transfer of DNA from one organism to another, was first accomplished by ] and ] in 1973." It is ''very clear'' that the genetic engineering is a different technology from breeding, and it ''does not'' say that an organism produced through breeding is a GMO. So again, what exactly are you objecting to? Thanks. ] (]) 12:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Being as it is in the "History" section of an entry on GMOs, it strongly implies that the results of this "modification" by conventional breeding is GMOs. I have seen far too many people arguing that GMOs go that far back or further. Describing conventional breeding in the history of GMOs without explicitly saying that the product of conventional breeding is not GMO leaves it easy for readers to conclude that it is GMO. I think that most people do not have enough logical capacity to see the distinction. ] (]) 18:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
::So you are not disputing that the current text is accurate and well-sourced. There is indeed much stronger rhetoric out there (as you have pointed out) blurring the line between breeding and genetic engineering. But our language is clear that breeding and genetic engineering are distinct technologies. As it stands the history section is true and accurate (I don't hear you contesting that at all). And, with its clarity, it is useful. If I were teaching a high school biology class, this is exactly how I would introduce the concept of genetic engineering to the class - going from driving changes in crops through breeding to driving change through genetic engineering is just the application of technology to a problem - like going from yodelling across a valley to calling a landline to calling a cell phone. I hear you, that you are concerned that somebody might think GMOs (in the sense of something created using genetic engineering) have been around for thousands of years, but we are ''not saying that'' and we cannot idiot-proof Misplaced Pages (or much in life). This is a lot of fuss over over one line! ] (]) 18:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Given the current climate, I'm not surprised the previous commenter created a "fuss over one line." That second sentence reads: "Genetic modification caused by human activity has been occurring since humans first domesticated animals in 12,000 BC. and plants around 10,000 BC." You seem to be relying on the fact that "genetic modification," as you use it in this sentence, doesn't necessarily result in a "genetically modified organism," as defined above in the Production section. I understand your statement about not being able to "idiot-proof Misplaced Pages"; however, I think the choice of words too easily blurs the definition of GMO (it blurred it enough for me that I sensed a contradiction between the two sections, and I don't think I'm an idiot). Perhaps simply linking the term "genetic modification" to the article stub for "modifications (genetics)" would suffice to reinforce the distinction (with the same change made to the "History of Genetic Engineering" article). ] (]) 20:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::Not sure what you mean by the "current climate", but I appreciate your rational comments. I just took a stab at clarifying. Does take care of your concern? ] (]) 20:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::I think if you struck the first sentence, "The general principle of producing a GMO is to alter an organism's genome," and perhaps the second, then it would be fine. With them there, there remains a logical flow that still contradicts the head paragraph, which follows like this: (1) to produce a GMO, you alter it's genome; (2) there are many ways to alter a genome (so, by (1), there are many ways to produce a GMO). Then (3) is a description of selective breeding, presented as an example of altering a genome, followed by genetic engineering. Within this edit, the logical conclusion would still be that GMOs are produced by ''either'' selective breeding or genetic engineering, which contradicts the head paragraph (and the Cartagena Protocol) that state that GMOs are produced only through genetic engineering. Since the section is on the history of genetic engineering, for which there is no dispute that selective breeding was an early driver, it would seem that the term GMO would be unnecessary to lead. It would be more consistent to introduce the term within the sentence discussing genetic engineering. ] (]) 04:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::actually as the lead says, Cartagena does not use the term "genetically modified organism"; it uses "living modified organism". your reading is a bit tendentious... you have to ''try'' to read the former text the way you did, or read it sloppily; the lead is very clear that a "GMO" is the product ''of genetic engineering''. as i have said above, we cannot protect Misplaced Pages against sloppy reading. in any case, i just made the edit. ok now, i hope. ] (]) 12:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
== Can we add some information about experiment on GMO food fed to rats? == | |||
Can someone with native English language edit this section to add information that is missing and crucial for a non/biased article? | |||
Here is the study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637 | |||
Here is a objective exlanation of why it has been retracted: http://www.corbettreport.com/genetic-fallacy-how-monsanto-silences-scientific-dissent/ | |||
I think this sentence "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from ingesting GM food." does not consider all the data available on the subject. | |||
] (]) 14:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Hi. This article is focused on GMOs per se. It is not about all the controversies around them. Misplaced Pages has an article on each kind of GMO thing that actually explains what it is, how it is used, etc, which are linked at the top of the page. This is so people can actually understand the subject of the controversy (formerly, each article was smothered with the controversy itself and said nothing about the controverted thing itself) Each article, including this one, has a stub section on the controversies, with a link to the main controversies article. In the main controversies article there is a section on the Seralini series of studies, as well as others, ]. Misplaced Pages also has an article on all the hoopla around that article and its retraction: ]. Content about that does not belong in this article, since that article is not about what a GMO is or how it is used. thanks! ] (]) 14:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
::I agree with user ] (]). The statements lack NPOV. There is no such "scientific consensus". Please see any of the below articles, which demonstrate both that there is no broad 'scientific consensus' on GMO safety -and- that GMO critics vigorously contest such a claim (neither of which is mentioned in the lede as it should for NPOV): | |||
::* | |||
::* | |||
::* | |||
::* | |||
::* | |||
::* | |||
::] (]) 14:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Artificial Genetic Modification-Production Section == | |||
Hello, My name is Dana and I am a new user. After reviewing the article I would like to suggest a possible update for review. In the production section that explains the artificial genetic modification methods can explanations be placed for the use and reason why each method may be preferred or used versus the other. For example, with genetic modification why are the genes attached to a virus versus using electroporation? What are the circumstances of each method? Thank you. ] (]) 02:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Controversy == | |||
I am a new user on wikipedia and this is my first post. I am trying to gain insight in the matter of GMOs and as I was researching the controversies section of this article and checked the references; I found them to be somewhat, lacking. I was going to post why I thought this but then read Jytdog's response that there is an entire page dedicated to the controversies surrounding GMOs. My thought now is, why even include the controversy section in this current article? This sentence, "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been proven in the human population from ingesting GM food" seems to advocate for GM crops when this is supposed to be a neutral article. When looking at the references supporting this sentence, I found references directly linked to them stating the opposite. Although I found this part possibly misleading, this is just a suggestion, please do not take any offense. I fully appreciate everyone's hard work in giving us the background on GMOs. Thanks! ] (]) 02:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Hi {{u|OrphB}} thanks coming and talking! Misplaced Pages stands very solidly with the scientific consensus on all things related to science. Please see the ''policy'' for editors, ], specifically this section ], and also the guideline that fleshes out that section, ]. There is a scientific consensus on these issues (although you wouldn't know that from websites you find out there). We need to include reference to the controversies, or this article would have a big whole in it. But we include this summary section, pointing folks to the main article, following the guideline called ]. I know I just threw a lot of policy and guideline stuff at you, but if you think about it for a minute... this is "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and a real democracy, so over the years the editing community has build up a body of law as it were, to help us work together. Without that, this place would be a pretty ugly, wild west-like place. With it, things can be beautiful here. Thanks again. ] (]) 04:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
==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 ]. Student editor(s): ]. | |||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 22:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}} | |||
:The "GMO controversy" might be replaced with a "problems" section listing the problems with GMOs. But that would require having to go through the bought-and-paid-for and selectively-consensed-here "science". The GMO pushers want you to think that their products and practices are infallible and can do no harm — a fact that is glaringly omitted from the entire section. | |||
== Article improvements == | |||
Merry Christmas. As anyone watching this page is well aware I have been doing extensive developments recently. Thanks to those that fixed some of my errors. I am looking to put this through the ] process, but thought I would solicit any opinions first. Basically I was trying to keep this a companion piece to ]. This one focusing more on the products, while the other more on the process. There was always going to be some overlap unfortunately, but hopefully it is not too bad. This has gotten quite long though, with 54kb readable prose, so there may be a case for trimming. I have copied information from here to recreated ] and ] articles (and will do the same for viruses and bacteria soon) so if this is trimmed the information will not be lost. Regards ] ] 09:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
:Monsanto's board members have worked for the EPA, advised the USDA, and served on President Obama's Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations. | |||
:I very much appreciate this work, but there is a problem that concerns me significantly. Editors working on this page need to remember that there is a paragraph that was established at ] that '''must not be altered'''. Even if it is just an issue of formatting the citations – ping {{u|Boghog}} – this requirement still applies. This is a serious matter, subject to Discretionary Sanctions. There is no problem with a formatting change that is not visible, but recently there have repeatedly been changes that modify the within-citation direct quotes, changing line breaks or the positions of quote marks, and that is '''not OK'''. I've been correcting these things, but I should not have to do so, and I certainly do not want the problem to get worse in the course of a GA review. After the most recent round of edits (I assume the ones by you, Aircorn), there is now a citation error within that paragraph, that needs to be fixed promptly. Apparently, some new content in the page uses <code><nowiki><ref name=AMA/></nowiki></code>, creating a conflict with the RfC paragraph: see the references list. The citation within the RfC paragraph should remain as it is, and the citation somewhere else on the page (I'm not going to look for it) should be revised to something like AMA2. | |||
:I realize that these are good-faith errors, so I have no intention of going after anyone, but please stop introducing these problems. There is a very simple way to avoid any problems at all: do not alter the paragraph, even if it is simply a matter of "consistent formatting". A bit of inconsistent formatting is not the worst thing in the world, and it is important not to start down the road of small changes to the consensus paragraph. --] (]) 20:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
:: OK, fine, but there was absolutely no warning given to editors in the article itself that there is a special paragraph that has been frozen in time. There is a warning on this talk page, but not in the article itself. I have one. It might be better to move this text into a template and transclude the template back into this article (and any other articles that contain this text). Just out of curiosity, and changes to this text (e.g., adding more recent sources) would require a new RFC? ] (]) 21:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, even adding more recent sources would require either: a new RfC of equivalent prominence, or a consensus of admins at ], or permission from ArbCom. The GMO ArbCom case was such a bloodletting that this is the way that things are, and why I'm so sensitive about it. But to repeat: I realize everyone here was acting in good faith. I know there is an edit notice every time anyone edits the page, that points to the DS and refers to page-specific restrictions, which in this case means looking at the talk page to see the information about the RfC. I think transcluding a new template might require prior permission from ArbCom. I'm just explaining that; I didn't make the rules. I like what you did with the non-displaying notice. Thanks. --] (]) 21:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::{{tq|It may be overturned only by another widely published full 30-day RfC, a consensus of administrators at WP:AE, or by decree of the Arbitration Committee.}} Whether that applies to small edits and modifications could be debated. There was talk of updating the Domingo reference some time ago. Suffice it to say that any change will need some sort of strong consensus. It was a necessary evil at the time and has done its job remarkably well. Personally I have reservations trancluding article content in article space (see ]). The hidden text is a good idea though and I will add it to the other articles. ] ] 22:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
::::The way I see it, anything that changes the meaning requires that kind of permission. That would certainly include adding a more recent citation, because that would be tantamount to updating what the RfC decided. For minor modifications such as formatting, I think it's important to keep in mind that each one of the quotations within the citations was fought over scorched earth. When someone makes a relatively trivial revision (maybe that's where the ref name=AMA came from), I take into consideration whether it was good faith. And again, all of what happened this time was entirely good faith. --] (]) 22:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::::It may well be that we have made a rod for our own back, but I still think it carries more positives than negatives. FWIW I have added the hidden test to all the articles covered under ] so hopefully that helps prevent these good faith edits and saves everyone a bit of angst. ] ] 16:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
::::::Thanks for doing that. --] (]) 20:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
::{{ec}}Sorry to do this to you, but I think you introduced the cite error. It was not present when I finished editing last night and came about with diff. Going back to the original addition of the paragraph in July 2016 it did not use <nowiki><ref name=AMA/></nowiki> . Anyway it is really a minor issue, easily solved. I only mention it here because it was assumed I caused it. | |||
::I am more interested in the order of the paragraphs in that section. I can understand wanting to keep it as a separate paragraph, but I would like to at least move the health introductory sentence above it. I think it would be good to keep the environmental concerns next followed by the miscellaneous ones. Basically from my understanding health is the main concern (hence the RFC), followed by the environment. It currently doesn't flow well going intro - scientific consensus on health - miscellaneous - health - environment. This is a diff of what I propose (not sure why the spaces were removed, might be a bug in visual editor). I fully understand the importance of the consensus paragraph, I would not be editing this article if we hadn't got that resolution, and have been careful not to change it or edit against the spirit of it. ] ] 21:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::As I said, I realize that everybody was acting in good faith, so I'm OK with taking the blame for the cite error. But all I did was restore the cite information that had been there before your edits, and your edits brought in the second "AMA" cite, so, whatever. | |||
:::About the paragraph order, I'm fine with the reordering you suggest, thanks for asking. But please do not restore it by self-reverting. Please make a clean edit, because your first edit reverted what Boghog did. I just don't want the RfC paragraph to be too low, and I don't want it combined into another paragraph. While you are at it, you might want to check whether, in fact, there are some duplicate citations. I think there might be, for AAAS and AMA, but I didn't check carefully. They look different because of the within-cite quotations. But it would be fine to leave the RfC cites as is, and use their "ref name="s to cite them again in other paragraphs. --] (]) 22:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
::::I really didn't. It was never in the and it was already present elsewhere before I started the latest round of edits . In fact the cause of the issue was another good faith user who combined the cites 2 weeks ago. Anyway, I didn't start this section to go diff diving so hopefully this clears it up. | |||
::::I was hoping to get some opinions on broad issues like ] (I am fine with it, but realise it is borderline) and missing info (maybe a definition section of what is a GMO, but that is covered in ]). I am pretty happy with where we sit personally so if there are no other major concerns I will take a little break from it and then do a final copy-edit. I do not enjoy the busy-work of consistently formatting refs and am happy as long as the information is easy for readers to find. That is one of the reasons why I focus on GAs and not FAs. For those unfamiliar these are the ] I am aiming for. ] ] 16:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thanks. Given that the issue I raised became sort-of off-topic for the GA effort, please feel free, if you would like to, to collapse the discussion starting at my first comment and continuing through the first paragraph of your most recent comment here. --] (]) 20:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
::::::I saw the updates just as I was getting away from the computer for awhile. I haven't had a chance to really dig into them all for potential trimming, etc., but overall they look like pretty good additions. I've been meaning to do a read through of the whole article sometime soon after the New Year, so I'll see what I can do to help before a GA review. The one that might get a little dicey, but needs to be addressed before GA is the definition of GMO especially in relation to gene editing, but also how it was a nebulous term scientifically before gene editing really came up. ] (]) 20:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::::::It is briefly mentioned (two sentences) under regulation regarding the different take US has compared to EU. There is also the older meanings of GMO re traditional breeding that may need to be given context and still comes up at these pages every now and again, so maybe an Etymology section is needed. When I was writing this I was adding information as I found it and some is probably more important than others. I tried to keep it to themes and emphasised the research side more as it tends to get overlooked here and I didn't want this to become just another GM crop article. Also what I found interesting might not be great encyclopaedically. I have some ideas of what could be trimmed or maybe even combined, but will not prejudge you. Thanks for the help and thoughts, you too Trypto. ] ] 08:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Thanks, I'm glad that we are good on it. I'm going to mostly leave the GA to you and KofA and whoever else wants to do it, because my bandwidth for it is already a bit full: I'm helping get another page to FA, and the whole GM area has gotten to feel like "work" for me. So good luck, and let me know if there is something specific where I can help. --] (]) 21:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
::::::::The recent addition of the Etylmology section looks pretty good. It's more comprehensive than the draft I had partially put together. I still have a few sources I have to dig through that I could add, and I'll take care of wrapping that and the overall read-through I mentioned tomorrow and Monday. ] (]) 02:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Thanks. I am going to play with ] and update the ] over the next few days so hopefully I will keep out of your way. ] ] 08:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::I don't expect that to affect anything I'll be doing. Hopefully I'll have everything wrapped before Tuesday or close to it. ] (]) 05:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Aircorn, I just did my once over, and most anything I could think of wasn't really needed for fleshing out at this article in terms of GA assessment here afterall. Most things I initially had in mind as potential issues keep an eye out for are better addressed at the crops article and are either given just enough of a brief review here or aren't mentioned to avoid getting into the weeds. I'd be pretty comfortable seeing this nominated for GA as it stands. ] (]) 06:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::Having a little bit of trouble parsing that, but get the bottom line that it is ready to go. Thanks for your read through, much appreciated. ] ] 06:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
*Okay the nomination is up. It could take a while for it to be picked up, but if anyone is interested the page to watch is ]. ] ] 04:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
== Protected articles == | |||
:Monsanto and other Biotech has a significant research agreement with South Dakota University, Arizona State's Biodesign Institue, Washington University in St. Louis, University of California at Berkeley's Plant and Microbiology, and UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. | |||
Why is this article protected from editing? ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 19:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:To prevent vandalism and the like. --] (]) 20:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
{{Talk:Genetically modified organism/GA1}} | |||
:'''"…GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food."''' Adding more references was '''not''' what was needed there. This so-called "GMO controversy" section is obviously not neutral. ] (]) 19:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::This is ] for general discussion of the topic much less biotech companies in general. As explained above, the section GM Controversies section in this article is a ] of the main article, ]. If you have concrete ideas about how to improve the article that comply with WP's policies and guidelines, it would be great to hear them.] (]) 19:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::I agree with user ] (]) that the article lacks NPOV for the reasons stated. I additionally provided RS showing that there is no such "scientific consensus" in an earlier section of this talk page. ] (]) 14:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Congrats on GA == | ||
Congrats and appreciation to all the editors who raised this page to a GA! --] (]) 22:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
Hello everyone, I added this tag to the article because I noticed the statement "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food" but this statement only reflects scientific consensus of some scientists in the United States, and not, for instance, . Should we rewrite this and related sentences to encompass more of a global perspective? Terms like "broad" are confusing at best and inaccurate at worst. ] (]) 17:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2020 == | |||
:At quick glance, we already have an EU source in the referenced content. I'm not aware of any legitimate regional dissention amongst the scientific community in this topic, so do you have reliable secondary sources from the scientific literature that states there are regional issues? ] definitely comes into play here, so we also need to be wary of that. One thing to remember is that we generally turn a blind eye to location when it comes to summarizing scientific consensus. We just summarize what the sources say regardless. ] (]) 17:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{edit semi-protected|Genetically modified organism|answered=yes}} | |||
::Ah, I see the EU source. For now, I'll change the tag back to "Anglo-American" until we figure out what to do about those dern' Ruskies! Scientific consensus in Russia is that GMO's are problematic, and I don't see why fringe would apply to them. Again, I'm not arguing the position of possible fringe scientists in the US, but rather that, worldwide, there is no way we can say "broad scientific consensus". ] (]) 18:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Please remove this website: | |||
wple.net/plek/numery_2007/numer-10-2007/908-912-koszowskigoniewicz-czogala.pdf from article. This is new website about nutres. ] (]) 10:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
:I've retrieved a Wayback Machine archive from 2013 for this page and amended it to the citation. ] <sup><i>(] · ])</i></sup> 16:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
== Hyphenation == | |||
:::<s>science does not vary around the world. That is a ] perspective. We don't tag WP articles based on FRINGE perspectives. Do not edit war over this. You need a valid basis for tagging an article. ] (]) 18:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)</s> per ] there needs to be a valid reason under NPOV, based on what the policy actually says, to tag an article. The idea that science varies around the world is a fringe perspective and per the ] section of ] we don't give weight to fringe perspectives (see the guideline that fleshes out PSCI, ]) Please establish a basis for problems with NPOV before tagging the article. Please do not edit war over this. Thanks ] (]) 18:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC) (reworded - doesn't change meaning ] (]) 18:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)) | |||
Hello, | |||
Shouldn't it be "genetically-modified organism", as "genetically" modifies {{small|(heh)}} "modified"? I don't know whether or not I'm right about that. Any input is appreciated. Thanks, ] (]) 04:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
: would seem to disagree that there is a lot of regional variation about the safety of GMO. ] (]) 18:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Has been without hyphen for years. Assume there is a consensus. ] (]) 18:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
:See ] #3, bullet 4. Generally no hyphens after -ly adverbs because they are already assumed to be modifying the subsequent word. –] (] • ]) 19:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
::Good point, CWenger. I hadn't read that. Regards, ] (]) 11:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
== GMO companies and their involvement. == | |||
::yes, thanks! ] (]) 18:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
During my research on crops and their modification it should be noted under '''controversies''' the companies that drive these controversial topics and how they are involved in the process of GMOS. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:::The Russian scientific community is a fringe view? I also said there are others. The Chinese scientific community has called GMO food safety into question and there is an active debate about it. On a worldwide scale, saying "other countries are fringe" is exactly the point of why this article demands a systemic bias tag. We cannot give preference to US scientists only. And we cannot say "broad consensus" when, globally, there is none. And, for the record, I'm not edit warring. I only reverted once when you were under the impression I wasn't intending to use the talk page. Anywho, perhaps we can go about this impasse by rewriting certain phrases instead of using a tag to pull in more editors. I strongly object to the wording "broad scientific consensus", so maybe that's a good starting point? ] (]) 19:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::did you look at the link provided by Yobol, and maybe notice the "chinese academy of sciences" there? (EU, several european countries including France, india, mexico, even the freaking pope. not to mention the WHO, the vatican of world health). so yes, global scientific consensus. and therefore, ... sources please for russia's and china's scientific consensus. thanks. plenty of folks before you have challenged the "broad scientific consensus" language and it even went through an RfC just about a year ago, where it was sustained. That discussion is here: ] No new science has emerged since then that would change the scientific consensus. (that is what it would take to change it - some significant new scientific findings). ] (]) 19:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::: isn't the "Russian Scientific Community" and as Jytdog has pointer out, this point has already been discussed at length over at ] which is the article that is summarised here. There are clearly strong sources which say that there ''is'' a broad consensus, so if you disagree, please provide sources that demonstrate this is incorrect and not just one source where an activist says that they are unsafe. ] (]) 19:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: thanks for the link, {{u|Smartse}}! yes there are fringe-y activist groups like that in the US too. consensus does not mean unanimity. not even broad consensus means unanimity. ] (]) 20:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I agree with ] (]). There is no "scientific consensus" on the safety of GMO products. I provided ] in a separate section of this talk page. ] (]) 14:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Controversies GMO companies involved == | |||
== Black swan paper == | |||
Hello, | |||
under discussion here ] ] (]) 19:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
I would like to add this into the controversies section. | |||
The companies involved in the controversies how they function in the process of GMOs and chemicals tied to crop GMOs. | |||
== Safety Switch == | |||
"Monsanto and Bayer have become one of the largest companies that control the seed and pesticide market in both the united states and Europe now that their deal is complete. These are one of the major players in the GMO world that drive new innovative ways to have new GMOs this also includes Pesticides and herbicides that are used in crops." | |||
. can this source be cited in the article? ] (]) 16:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks! Interesting - this is basically new versions of, and a positive spin on, ] which anti-GMO people were deeply suspicious of. With regard to this specific thing - in my view this is "news" about basic research published in a primary source - there are probably reviews that cover this and other approaches that we should cite. I will have a look and see what I find! ] (]) 17:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
--] (]) 01:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
== No so-called "scientific consensus" == | |||
::I have removed the addition. The generalizations are not in line with how sourced statements typically appear on wikipedia, and overall language is vague, "new innovative ways to have new GMOs" particularly so. I see that you are a student editor, and I suggest that you choose a different area of focus. If you contact the wikiEdu staff assigned to your class, they can help you switch. GMO-related pages are an area of particular controversy on wikipedia and subject to ]. Most GMO-related articles are also fairly mature articles, and are going to be hard for a new editor to make improvements to even apart from the 1RR issue.] (]) 23:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
As I have mentioned in the Genetically modified food controversy talk page (and at least 3 users have noted), there is no "scientific consensus" that GMO's are as safe as conventional food, and I listed articles there and also above on this talk page proving it. It is little more than rhetoric originating from GMO Proponents. This sentence: | |||
:"There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food." | |||
is little more than ], which is why so many citations are provided. I propose that either: | |||
* The sentence is stricken | |||
* The sentence is changed for NPOV to include the challenges to the "scientific consensus" claim. | |||
] (]) 14:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for posting here. Your perspective on this is different from that of the community to date, as upheld by an RfC, which is . But we should keep the current discussion in one place, as you linked to above: . ] (]) 15:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 21:09, 12 October 2024
Genetically modified organism has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 21, 2019. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetically modified organism 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, 4Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Genetically modified organism. 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 organism at the Reference desk. |
This level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from Genetic engineering was copied or moved into Genetically modified organism with this edit. 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. |
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).
|
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): Dianerrs.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Article improvements
Merry Christmas. As anyone watching this page is well aware I have been doing extensive developments recently. Thanks to those that fixed some of my errors. I am looking to put this through the good article process, but thought I would solicit any opinions first. Basically I was trying to keep this a companion piece to genetic engineering. This one focusing more on the products, while the other more on the process. There was always going to be some overlap unfortunately, but hopefully it is not too bad. This has gotten quite long though, with 54kb readable prose, so there may be a case for trimming. I have copied information from here to recreated Genetically modified plant and Genetically modified animal articles (and will do the same for viruses and bacteria soon) so if this is trimmed the information will not be lost. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 09:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- I very much appreciate this work, but there is a problem that concerns me significantly. Editors working on this page need to remember that there is a paragraph that was established at WP:GMORFC that must not be altered. Even if it is just an issue of formatting the citations – ping Boghog – this requirement still applies. This is a serious matter, subject to Discretionary Sanctions. There is no problem with a formatting change that is not visible, but recently there have repeatedly been changes that modify the within-citation direct quotes, changing line breaks or the positions of quote marks, and that is not OK. I've been correcting these things, but I should not have to do so, and I certainly do not want the problem to get worse in the course of a GA review. After the most recent round of edits (I assume the ones by you, Aircorn), there is now a citation error within that paragraph, that needs to be fixed promptly. Apparently, some new content in the page uses
<ref name=AMA/>
, creating a conflict with the RfC paragraph: see the references list. The citation within the RfC paragraph should remain as it is, and the citation somewhere else on the page (I'm not going to look for it) should be revised to something like AMA2. - I realize that these are good-faith errors, so I have no intention of going after anyone, but please stop introducing these problems. There is a very simple way to avoid any problems at all: do not alter the paragraph, even if it is simply a matter of "consistent formatting". A bit of inconsistent formatting is not the worst thing in the world, and it is important not to start down the road of small changes to the consensus paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- OK, fine, but there was absolutely no warning given to editors in the article itself that there is a special paragraph that has been frozen in time. There is a warning on this talk page, but not in the article itself. I have added one. It might be better to move this text into a template and transclude the template back into this article (and any other articles that contain this text). Just out of curiosity, and changes to this text (e.g., adding more recent sources) would require a new RFC? Boghog (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, even adding more recent sources would require either: a new RfC of equivalent prominence, or a consensus of admins at WP:AE, or permission from ArbCom. The GMO ArbCom case was such a bloodletting that this is the way that things are, and why I'm so sensitive about it. But to repeat: I realize everyone here was acting in good faith. I know there is an edit notice every time anyone edits the page, that points to the DS and refers to page-specific restrictions, which in this case means looking at the talk page to see the information about the RfC. I think transcluding a new template might require prior permission from ArbCom. I'm just explaining that; I didn't make the rules. I like what you did with the non-displaying notice. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
It may be overturned only by another widely published full 30-day RfC, a consensus of administrators at WP:AE, or by decree of the Arbitration Committee.
Whether that applies to small edits and modifications could be debated. There was talk of updating the Domingo reference some time ago. Suffice it to say that any change will need some sort of strong consensus. It was a necessary evil at the time and has done its job remarkably well. Personally I have reservations trancluding article content in article space (see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 147#Transcluding article content into other articles). The hidden text is a good idea though and I will add it to the other articles. AIRcorn (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)- The way I see it, anything that changes the meaning requires that kind of permission. That would certainly include adding a more recent citation, because that would be tantamount to updating what the RfC decided. For minor modifications such as formatting, I think it's important to keep in mind that each one of the quotations within the citations was fought over scorched earth. When someone makes a relatively trivial revision (maybe that's where the ref name=AMA came from), I take into consideration whether it was good faith. And again, all of what happened this time was entirely good faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- It may well be that we have made a rod for our own back, but I still think it carries more positives than negatives. FWIW I have added the hidden test to all the articles covered under WP:GMORFC so hopefully that helps prevent these good faith edits and saves everyone a bit of angst. AIRcorn (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- It may well be that we have made a rod for our own back, but I still think it carries more positives than negatives. FWIW I have added the hidden test to all the articles covered under WP:GMORFC so hopefully that helps prevent these good faith edits and saves everyone a bit of angst. AIRcorn (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- The way I see it, anything that changes the meaning requires that kind of permission. That would certainly include adding a more recent citation, because that would be tantamount to updating what the RfC decided. For minor modifications such as formatting, I think it's important to keep in mind that each one of the quotations within the citations was fought over scorched earth. When someone makes a relatively trivial revision (maybe that's where the ref name=AMA came from), I take into consideration whether it was good faith. And again, all of what happened this time was entirely good faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Sorry to do this to you, but I think you introduced the cite error. It was not present when I finished editing last night and came about with this diff. Going back to the original addition of the paragraph in July 2016 it did not use <ref name=AMA/> . Anyway it is really a minor issue, easily solved. I only mention it here because it was assumed I caused it.
- I am more interested in the order of the paragraphs in that section. I can understand wanting to keep it as a separate paragraph, but I would like to at least move the health introductory sentence above it. I think it would be good to keep the environmental concerns next followed by the miscellaneous ones. Basically from my understanding health is the main concern (hence the RFC), followed by the environment. It currently doesn't flow well going intro - scientific consensus on health - miscellaneous - health - environment. This is a diff of what I propose (not sure why the spaces were removed, might be a bug in visual editor). I fully understand the importance of the consensus paragraph, I would not be editing this article if we hadn't got that resolution, and have been careful not to change it or edit against the spirit of it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- As I said, I realize that everybody was acting in good faith, so I'm OK with taking the blame for the cite error. But all I did was restore the cite information that had been there before your edits, and your edits brought in the second "AMA" cite, so, whatever.
- About the paragraph order, I'm fine with the reordering you suggest, thanks for asking. But please do not restore it by self-reverting. Please make a clean edit, because your first edit reverted what Boghog did. I just don't want the RfC paragraph to be too low, and I don't want it combined into another paragraph. While you are at it, you might want to check whether, in fact, there are some duplicate citations. I think there might be, for AAAS and AMA, but I didn't check carefully. They look different because of the within-cite quotations. But it would be fine to leave the RfC cites as is, and use their "ref name="s to cite them again in other paragraphs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- I really didn't. It was never in the addition of the paragraph after the RFC and it was already present elsewhere before I started the latest round of edits search ref name="AMA" here. In fact the cause of the issue was another good faith user who combined the cites 2 weeks ago. Anyway, I didn't start this section to go diff diving so hopefully this clears it up.
- I was hoping to get some opinions on broad issues like Misplaced Pages:Article size (I am fine with it, but realise it is borderline) and missing info (maybe a definition section of what is a GMO, but that is covered in Genetic engineering). I am pretty happy with where we sit personally so if there are no other major concerns I will take a little break from it and then do a final copy-edit. I do not enjoy the busy-work of consistently formatting refs and am happy as long as the information is easy for readers to find. That is one of the reasons why I focus on GAs and not FAs. For those unfamiliar these are the criteria I am aiming for. AIRcorn (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Given that the issue I raised became sort-of off-topic for the GA effort, please feel free, if you would like to, to collapse the discussion starting at my first comment and continuing through the first paragraph of your most recent comment here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- I saw the updates just as I was getting away from the computer for awhile. I haven't had a chance to really dig into them all for potential trimming, etc., but overall they look like pretty good additions. I've been meaning to do a read through of the whole article sometime soon after the New Year, so I'll see what I can do to help before a GA review. The one that might get a little dicey, but needs to be addressed before GA is the definition of GMO especially in relation to gene editing, but also how it was a nebulous term scientifically before gene editing really came up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is briefly mentioned (two sentences) under regulation regarding the different take US has compared to EU. There is also the older meanings of GMO re traditional breeding that may need to be given context and still comes up at these pages every now and again, so maybe an Etymology section is needed. When I was writing this I was adding information as I found it and some is probably more important than others. I tried to keep it to themes and emphasised the research side more as it tends to get overlooked here and I didn't want this to become just another GM crop article. Also what I found interesting might not be great encyclopaedically. I have some ideas of what could be trimmed or maybe even combined, but will not prejudge you. Thanks for the help and thoughts, you too Trypto. AIRcorn (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm glad that we are good on it. I'm going to mostly leave the GA to you and KofA and whoever else wants to do it, because my bandwidth for it is already a bit full: I'm helping get another page to FA, and the whole GM area has gotten to feel like "work" for me. So good luck, and let me know if there is something specific where I can help. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- The recent addition of the Etylmology section looks pretty good. It's more comprehensive than the draft I had partially put together. I still have a few sources I have to dig through that I could add, and I'll take care of wrapping that and the overall read-through I mentioned tomorrow and Monday. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am going to play with Template:Genetic engineering sidebar and update the Template:Genetic engineering over the next few days so hopefully I will keep out of your way. AIRcorn (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't expect that to affect anything I'll be doing. Hopefully I'll have everything wrapped before Tuesday or close to it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Aircorn, I just did my once over, and most anything I could think of wasn't really needed for fleshing out at this article in terms of GA assessment here afterall. Most things I initially had in mind as potential issues keep an eye out for are better addressed at the crops article and are either given just enough of a brief review here or aren't mentioned to avoid getting into the weeds. I'd be pretty comfortable seeing this nominated for GA as it stands. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Having a little bit of trouble parsing that, but get the bottom line that it is ready to go. Thanks for your read through, much appreciated. AIRcorn (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Aircorn, I just did my once over, and most anything I could think of wasn't really needed for fleshing out at this article in terms of GA assessment here afterall. Most things I initially had in mind as potential issues keep an eye out for are better addressed at the crops article and are either given just enough of a brief review here or aren't mentioned to avoid getting into the weeds. I'd be pretty comfortable seeing this nominated for GA as it stands. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't expect that to affect anything I'll be doing. Hopefully I'll have everything wrapped before Tuesday or close to it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am going to play with Template:Genetic engineering sidebar and update the Template:Genetic engineering over the next few days so hopefully I will keep out of your way. AIRcorn (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is briefly mentioned (two sentences) under regulation regarding the different take US has compared to EU. There is also the older meanings of GMO re traditional breeding that may need to be given context and still comes up at these pages every now and again, so maybe an Etymology section is needed. When I was writing this I was adding information as I found it and some is probably more important than others. I tried to keep it to themes and emphasised the research side more as it tends to get overlooked here and I didn't want this to become just another GM crop article. Also what I found interesting might not be great encyclopaedically. I have some ideas of what could be trimmed or maybe even combined, but will not prejudge you. Thanks for the help and thoughts, you too Trypto. AIRcorn (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- I saw the updates just as I was getting away from the computer for awhile. I haven't had a chance to really dig into them all for potential trimming, etc., but overall they look like pretty good additions. I've been meaning to do a read through of the whole article sometime soon after the New Year, so I'll see what I can do to help before a GA review. The one that might get a little dicey, but needs to be addressed before GA is the definition of GMO especially in relation to gene editing, but also how it was a nebulous term scientifically before gene editing really came up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Given that the issue I raised became sort-of off-topic for the GA effort, please feel free, if you would like to, to collapse the discussion starting at my first comment and continuing through the first paragraph of your most recent comment here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- OK, fine, but there was absolutely no warning given to editors in the article itself that there is a special paragraph that has been frozen in time. There is a warning on this talk page, but not in the article itself. I have added one. It might be better to move this text into a template and transclude the template back into this article (and any other articles that contain this text). Just out of curiosity, and changes to this text (e.g., adding more recent sources) would require a new RFC? Boghog (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Okay the nomination is up. It could take a while for it to be picked up, but if anyone is interested the page to watch is Talk:Genetically modified organism/GA1. AIRcorn (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Protected articles
Why is this article protected from editing? 50.107.133.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- To prevent vandalism and the like. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Genetically modified organism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Reviewing now, but I might take a few days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- vital to the discovery and development of cures and treatments for many serious diseases. – I would be careful here. "Vital" seems not the the correct word, as there are other means of curing diseases, GMOs are not "vital" for this.
- Changed to important and re wrote the sentence to emphasise that this refers to GMOs as the creation of model organisms for human diseases. AIRcorn (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- says that the plants or animals – what about other lifeforms, such as bacteria and fungy? Maybe say "life forms" instead? Same issue repeats on several other locations.
- Yeah that should cover all organisms. AIRcorn (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- with genes by introduced, eliminated, or rearranged – something missing here?
- Removed the "by". AIRcorn (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- The term GMO originally was not used until it became common through popular media to the point even scientists began to use it. – Bit vague, when was it not used? Besides, any term would not be used before coming into use, so the sentence does not make a clear point.
- This one was my doing, so I'll address it. Basically, GMO has not been a preferred term by scientists compared to genetically engineered organism as outlined in the rest of the paragraph, and GMO really wasn't used at the time. The sources are basically describing that GMO became more common in scientific literature after it caught on in popular culture despite the initial preference and precision issues. I've changed the text a bit and moved it behind the sentence talking about precision in terminology to make this a bit more clear. Let me know if something still isn't clear on that front. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I would suggest to name the section "definition" instead of "etymology".
- This can be taken from a cell containing the gene – suboptimal wording, I suggest to simply write "This gene can be taken from a cell".
- "certain stresses (e.g. thermal or electric shock)." – maybe "(e.g. thermal stress or electric shock)"?
- I can't think of or find any ther methods so got rid of the e.g and just mentioned those two methods. Used usually just in case and added a cite. AIRcorn (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- inserted it into a plasmid and then induced another bacteria to incorporate the plasmid – "induced other bacteria" or "induced another bacterium
- went with induced other bacteria as it would have been more than one AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- engineered to produce human tissue plasminogen activator in 1987 – Maybe an explanation (what is tissue plasminogen activatior) would be good here.
- Added a wikilink and short explanation. AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- ice-minus strain – can you link or explain?
- I go into more detail on this under bacteria so hope to just kept it general here. Went with just a strain of Pseudomonas syringae. Let me know if that works. AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- The first genetically modified animal to be approved for food use was AquAdvantage salmon in 2015. – Approved in which country?
- USA. Added a second sentence mentioning that they are raised in Panama as well AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- FDA approved in the US, but as of Feb 2019 still not being SOLD in the US. Release to market got stalled in labeling law. Instead, first actual sales were in Canada, August 2017. I added refs to confirm both. Raised in Panama does not mean sold in Panama. And anyway, AquaBounty changed its mind and intends to produce fish for US in Indiana. For the moment, not allowed to move eggs from the egg facility in Canada, to US.
- USA. Added a second sentence mentioning that they are raised in Panama as well AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Bacteria are the simplest model organism – Model organisms are species, but Bacteria is a large clade.
- Reworded. AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Most food-producing bacteria are lactic acid bacteria, and this is where the majority of research into genetically engineering food-producing bacteria has gone. – Maybe add which foods they produce?
- I have some examples at the end of the paragraph. Do you think it needs more? AIRcorn (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- reduce toxic byproduct production – is "reduce toxic byproducts" enough?
- Don't quite follow this. AIRcorn (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I meant you could avoid repeating "product" if you would delete the word "production". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Don't quite follow this. AIRcorn (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Food products from genetically modified bacteria – again, I think we need to know which countries this applies to.
- Best source I found was dated 2015 so used "as of". AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Application of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and other bacteria can help protect crops from insect infestation and plant diseases – How does this work? How do you apply a bacterium? Do you mean specific genes or proteins taken from this bacterium?
- This was just part of an introductory sentence into bacteria used in agriculture. It is application of the whole bacteria in a spray usually used by organic farmers. It is quite popular, or at least was. I think there are issues with the sun degrading it and rain washing it off, so not sure how effective it is. The genes taken from this bacterium form a large part of the GM crop section. I kept most of the info tied to that section. If it is less confusing I can move it down there, or just delete it as I am not talking about them as specific GMOs here. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- they can compete with the ice-plus bacteria – you write "the ice plus bacteria", but this term was not formerly mentioned, and deserves explanation and/or a link.
- Its just a way to differentiate from the ice-minus strain. Will reword. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Heading Virus – Maybe in plural, Viruses?
- Yeah, makes sense. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- set back the development of this approach for many years. When was that?
- Added date of Jesse Gelsinger trial to sentence. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Herpes simplex viruses is a promising vector – mixes plural and singular
- Went plural. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Another approach is to use vectors to create novel vaccines for diseases that have no vaccines available – How does this work? Maybe try to provide some general idea?
- The original source was quite broad so found an example for tuberculosis (which is possibly the most important one). Don't really want to go into too much detail here as I am trying to keep it overviewish. It went to phase II trials, but although safe wasn't as effective as hoped. AIRcorn (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Outside of biology scientists have used a genetically modified virus to construct a more environmentally friendly lithium-ion battery and other nanostructured materials. – Maybe a short explanation here to get an idea how it works?
- Not my area, but I tried to explain it as best I could (had to try and understand it myself first). AIRcorn (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- and as of 2016 two genetically modified yeasts involved in the fermentation of wine have been commercialised – again, in which country?
- USA and Canada. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- to create new colours in plants – unprecise. Does it refer to flowers, or to colors of crops?
- Flowers. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- It was the first plant to be genetically engineered – Tobaco is not an originally engineered plant. Maybe reword "It was the first plant to be altered using genetic engineering"?
- As such the transgenic tools and procedures are well established – but only for tabacco? Maybe make this clear
- Clarified. Arabidopsis is up there too, but this is made implied later.
- has abundant bioinformatic resources – I don't understand this.
- Online databases and such. Have said this. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- (actually lavender or mauve) – please link these colors
- to produce greater volume and better products. – better is too vague and not neutral. There are many people who would not consider any GMO product as "better".
- The more obvious advantage to moving pathways is to express greater amounts so removed the better products part. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- plants can modify the proteins post-translationally – maybe add an accessible explanation in brackets.
- Found a better wikilink, Can add an example or explanation if you want, but would rather use wikilinks. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- user:Aircorn, very interesting, and important article. Looks very good. I copy edited as I went. More comments soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing this. I will work through these today and comment below each point. AIRcorn (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack: I think I have either fixed all the raised issues or responded here. Sorry it took a bit longer than I expected. I really appreciate the review and look forward to the second half. I should warn you that my hands will be a bit tied when it comes to the controversy section (ARB enforced wording needs to be used there). Don't let that stop you making any suggestions as myself and a few other editors are familiar with what can and can't be done there. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Great! Last comments below! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack: I think I have either fixed all the raised issues or responded here. Sorry it took a bit longer than I expected. I really appreciate the review and look forward to the second half. I should warn you that my hands will be a bit tied when it comes to the controversy section (ARB enforced wording needs to be used there). Don't let that stop you making any suggestions as myself and a few other editors are familiar with what can and can't be done there. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing this. I will work through these today and comment below each point. AIRcorn (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Convenience break
- the end aims are much the same as plants – "as in plants"? "as for plants"? I'm not a native speaker.
- As for sounds better to me. AIRcorn (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- The development of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system has effectively halved the amount of time needed – How does that relate to the previous info? Does it allow to change stem cells directly?
- Yep. It is pretty much a game breaker. Elucidated. AIRcorn (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Human alpha-1-antitrypsin is another protein that has been produced and is used in treating humans with this deficiency – but is this also from the mentioned goat?
- Yep. Clarified. AIRcorn (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- GMO lifestock: You are listing several, but without stating if these have already been approved somewhere. I guess not?
- Nope, unless you count salmon. Added a sentence to the first paragraph of the animal section to indicate what has been approved and where. AIRcorn (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Text and refs added to indicate being sold in Canada as of 2017, not yet (as of Feb 2019) sold in US. David notMD (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nope, unless you count salmon. Added a sentence to the first paragraph of the animal section to indicate what has been approved and where. AIRcorn (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- to become publicly available as a pet – but not worldwide, right?
- No. Like most of the others it is the US. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- The article is supposed to be in British English, right? Whatch out for American spellings, such as color.
- I didn't notice British variants being used before, but in terms of WP:ENGVAR, the first usage I could find was generalize (as opposed to generalise) making the default American English and the most recent comment in 2014 I could find said American too. I can go through and standardize to American unless anyone has strong objections to this change? Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- I probably wrote 80% of the current article (if not more) and while not British, my native variant is closely related to that. As such my default spelling comes out. So many lame wars have been fought over what in the end is a relatively minor issue that if someone wants to enforce WP:Retain to an American version I am not going to to fight it. AIRcorn (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I personally don't usually find it a big deal which one is used even if it's inconsistent (I didn't notice at all in my previous reviews), but I also saw a fair mix of both uses now that I look. You never know if someone might raise a fuss in the future on RETAIN though, so it'll save some hassle by going to American now since it'll be copy-edited now anyways. I'll take care of that in a bit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I probably wrote 80% of the current article (if not more) and while not British, my native variant is closely related to that. As such my default spelling comes out. So many lame wars have been fought over what in the end is a relatively minor issue that if someone wants to enforce WP:Retain to an American version I am not going to to fight it. AIRcorn (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't notice British variants being used before, but in terms of WP:ENGVAR, the first usage I could find was generalize (as opposed to generalise) making the default American English and the most recent comment in 2014 I could find said American too. I can go through and standardize to American unless anyone has strong objections to this change? Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- It obtained regulatory approval in 2015 – but where?
- DavidMD has added some more info on the countries. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Transposons are well developed in Drosophila – what does "well developed" mean here? Maybe write "abundant" instead?
- Not sure about abundant. I was trying to say that transposon editing techniques were well developed. Reworded. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- in its egg passed regulatory approval in 2015. – Where?
- Another one for the US. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- are used in development biology – developmental biology research?
- nemotode – you consistently spell it like this, but isn't it "nematode"?
- Changed to nematode. Nemotode looks to be a British spelling though I didn't know about until now.Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- say that absent scientific evidence of harm even voluntary labeling is misleading – should it be "in the absence of scientific evidence"?
- Both seem to read alright to me. I like the first one slightly better as it only has the one of and is slightly shorter. Not too fussed if somoene wants to change it though. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- The regulations section has very little on regulation of research. Do these regulation mean that certain nations are much more advanced in GMO research than others?
- I have had a tremendous amount of difficulty finding sources on the regulation in lab as opposed to the release. When I wrote Regulation of genetic engineering the best source I found was from the University of Woolongong. I don't know if this information is just not easily available, is kept in house or is just flooded out by regulations involving the release of GMOs. It has been a little while since I searched for this so will give it another go now. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Okay found a few decent papers (-crops and -food in the search engine helped). Added quite a bit to the regulation article and a trimmed down version here. Hopefully this covers enough. Luckily the laboratory regulations are pretty consistent across all countries. AIRcorn (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- As to whether some countries are more advanced than others, I have not really found anything useful to add here. Common sense would say that countries with less scientific funding in general would be behind, but that is not A GM thing in particular. The regulations for research appear pretty consistent across most major scientific players so I imagine the reulations themselves don't play much role in this. AIRcorn (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I have had a tremendous amount of difficulty finding sources on the regulation in lab as opposed to the release. When I wrote Regulation of genetic engineering the best source I found was from the University of Woolongong. I don't know if this information is just not easily available, is kept in house or is just flooded out by regulations involving the release of GMOs. It has been a little while since I searched for this so will give it another go now. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- To get a more worldwide view, maybe mention the (apparently only three) countries where GMO foods are banned entirely?
- Curious where you got the three number from, it may be outdated. Looking at the Genetic Literacy Project there are currently nine countries that ban the growing and importing GM food. I don't like using that as a source, but have no reason to doubt them. I will look for a better one. AIRcorn (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Could not find anything suitable so used the Literacy one. If this is a problem I could use individual sources for each country. AIRcorn (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Article is strongly focused on the US, but almost nothing on China, despite it being a major player in research. I wonder what the regulations are in China? Apparently labeling is mandatory, but research seems not to be as strongly regulated considering the resent human babies?
- The babies were not approved (for want of a better word) so were done outside of the regulatory system. It does pose questions on their checks and balances though. It may take a while, but I will see what I can dig up. I can add some info on crops from Genetically modified food in Asia#China, but may struggle to find info on research. As to the US bias, they are the major pusher of the technology (in crops anyway) so it is mainly focused on them. I tried to keep the regulation as a contrast between Europe and the USA as they are probably the most conflicting in terms of regulations. If that isn't apparent then I will look at rewording it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am in two minds about this. I understand the world view concern, but the fact is most sources focuses on the US vs EU conflict. Also as far as I can tell most other countries seem to base their regulations from those ones. The He controversy is still too new to really get a gauge on regulation wise, but may in the future provide some content suitable for here. We don't mention the ethics or regulation of human genetic engineering, because until now (well really Lulu and Nana still need better confirmation) it has always been the realm of sci fi. I also find this whole regulatory issues very dry and don't really want to add too much on regulatory agencies and legislation to this page (Regulation of genetic engineering is better suited to that). I could add the table I made at Genetic engineering here, but I feel I repeat that section too much already. I am going to leave this for now. Let me know if it is an issue that needs resolving and I will come back to it later. AIRcorn (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Other ethical issues – the issues listed in the previous sentence are not (at least not all of them) ethical. I suggest to remove the "other".
Controversy section
- You state that there is no scientific evidence for negative impact on human health. But to be fair, there is evidence for other (e.g., environmental) concerns, such as gene flow. I think this evidence, especially regarding gene flow to other species, should be mentioned, with examples.
- Most of that subject matter deals with Genetically modified crops, so I wonder if that would be a better question when that article is under GA review considering how the network of articles/daughter articles is set up? This one gets tricky because a lot of those "concerns" are WP:UNDUE or even WP:FRINGE depending on what's being asked. There have been talk page discussions about things like that in the past and this explains some of that. For your example, the risks of gene flow are basically no different between GMO or traditional breeding in the crop world at least (e.g., it doesn't matter whether herbicide tolerance came from traditional breeding or genetic engineering).
- This sort of stuff has basically been set aside in the last paragraph of this article (and other articles) including some environmental things to "describe the controversy". I guess I'm not sure how much more could really be included at this broad overview article yet without first fleshing out more in the daughter/granddaughter articles before assessing the WP:SUMMARY here. Considering the potential legwork needed, maybe that's more relevant of the comprehensive scope for an FA instead of GA? Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Please consider all my points as mere suggestions for further improvement. Not everything is required for reaching GA, including this point. My personal goal is not to pass it as GA as fast as possible, but to help improving the article as much as possible. Please feel free to skip everything you feel unreasonable. But if you are planning to get the article to FAC at some point, I have the feeling that the "Controversy" section is the weakest part of the article, and should ideally be improved before submitting to FAC. My suggestion above was one, probably ill-conceived, attempt to get the section into the right direction. This controversy is for sure of high relevance (maybe not so much for science, but for society in general), and in my opinion could be fleshed out without violating Summary style. I'm really not sure what to do precisely. It somehow remains very general and vague, without really getting to the points. A clear structure is also difficult to spot (most of the section is about food, with some bits in-between about other concerns). Maybe try to discuss concerns point by point. One more point that you may want to consider:
- Although doubts have been raised, most studies have found growing GM crops to be beneficial to farmers. – "beneficial" is quite vague here. Using GM crops is arguably not beneficial for the farmer's health, as GM crops come in a package with pesticides. On the other hand, few would disagree that GM crops would be beneficial to the farmers as they increase yield. So why mention the farmers at all in the introductory paragraph? In my feeling the whole discussion revolves more around environmental impact and consumers health. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, I'm just feeling out what you were looking for along with some of the logistics of handling some of these topics in various depths. I'm mostly just trying to help wade through of the reasoning and history for the layout of this article and how it fits with the other articles. I'm not sure if this would be nominated for FA, but until it would be prepped for FA-like depth, I'd really only expect the gene flow topic to have a sentence or two at most on gene flow (currently mentioned in the controversy section) and more in the daughter articles. A bit more history on the controversy section is that it is meant to be vague as it gives brief mention of largely fringe viewpoints without going into depth or undue weight of those viewpoints while leaving more for Genetically modified food controversies. What you're seeing was an intent to balance describing the controversy with other policy, so while tweaking could be done, some vagueness was intended too.
- For the sentence you mentioned, beneficial includes different aspects like financial, health, etc. in the cited sources. The health one is a big factor because the GM crops either have plant-produced insecticides or herbicide tolerance. The former replaces foliar insecticides, which are often a health risk for farmers, with one farmers generally don't have to interact with that also doesn't affect human health. The latter for herbicides currently uses a much less toxic herbicide that still gets sprayed like any other pesticide, but that's replacing older more toxic herbicides. Your comments are reminding me of a few areas here that could be strengthened, so I'll see if I can do some tweaks in this area in the next day or two to tackle some vague wording. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- I tried to streamline the controversy section a bit. It's going to be a sort of catchall either way, so if anyone else has ideas, it might be worth trying them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- I undid one of your edits as I think it is important to mention the secondary pest concern. I will expand on it when I get time. I am not sure about removing the health introductory sentence either. From my understanding health is the major concern anti-GM groups focus on so deserves a bit more weight. I think it is important for the narrative that we outline what the concerns are before we dispel them. That is followed by the environment, which although it gets less mentioning in the media has more evidence in the reliable literature. My general thinking weight wise is two paragraphs on health (one covered by the arb wording), two on environment (one focusing on gene flow - which is probably the most significant), one paragraph covering the other issues (IP, religous etc) and one paragraph giving us an intro to the opposition (including the groups involved). AIRcorn (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- No worries. The secondary pest thing isn't really unique to GMOs per se (open a niche with resistant plants or other control methods, GM or not, and something can still fill it) and probably fits better under the crop section, but I'm ok with your current version as is in terms of the GA nom at least. No strong feelings on any of my edits in the section really.
- For a bit more clarification, the introductory sentence removal was meant to cut down on redundancy since the health stuff was more or less covered by the arb language, but it was just my stab at trimming if it worked. I also added the Kniss source in terms of parity because the Gilbert source isn't peer-reviewed (i.e., written only by a science journalist as opposed to a statement by an actual weed scientist that is usually considered reliable when attributed). There's more to flesh out on the gene flow topic to make sure everything is WP:DUE when mentioned, but it's also not something I'd fuss over any more for the GA at least. I agree with you that I'd rather see the controversy stuff integrated into the article and remove the section (and maybe get rid of some headaches trying to work with that material), but that's probably something for another day after GA. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry it took a while to get down to here. While many of the agricultural issues are common to all farming (monocultures, pesticide use, etc), they are brought up a lot with regards to this technology. Maybe that paragraph needs to state that somewhere. I would love to move many of these specific concerns to the crop section, but the same could be said about the health paragraph (fish aside) and no one is going to touch that. Crops is mentioned as the major concern in the lead and intro of this section, so I don't think there are Due concerns giving it extra weight. I might include a sentence on containment of research GMOs somewhere to broaden the scope a bit if I can find a decent source. I actually misread your use of that parity source and see now it was for the preceding sentence. I still feel we need a stronger source to say that rates of weeds have not increased. I would be surprised if there was not a journal article on this.
- As to the health info, my main problem is the constraints placed upon us by the GMORFC. It makes writing a flowing article a bit difficult (i.e. the regulatory sentence would fit in better above and there is no real lead in). In the end it is doable, and if we hadn't got closure on that I would not even be attempting this. A single paragraph could work, but it would need that one to be changed slightly. I think allergenicity needs to be mentioned as a concern, along with HGT to humans (although less so). Pusztai and Seralini could be something else that is linked (I think we did it well somewhere else). Obviously they need to be balanced with how much of a risk there actually is. I am of the opinion that not mentioning something due to unscientific concerns just makes the problem worse. Better to mention it and then explain the science. It does get a bit tricky for overview articles, but we all knew this was going to be a difficult section to get right. AIRcorn (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Part of my removals were just for streamlining with prejudice against fleshing those topics out if they fit better, so that all sounds pretty good. Allergenicity definitely can be pretty easily addressed in a WP:DUE fashion by mentioning that allergens are screened for as part of the regulatory process (i.e., adding a peanut allergen protein isn't going to get approved). For HGT, I’m still looking for good sources we can use here (I usually deal with the primary literature on this subject), but here’s a recent example of a primary source at least I have watch listed that's at least better quality in a parity sense. There are some older reviews that basically say HGT is not a significant risk to human or environmental health either. I’d still have to think about how to tackle this one too (maybe next week when I’m not on mobile). I don’t see this as something that would necessarily hinder the GA process and could be dealt with at a later time, so there doesn’t need to be a rush on this, but there’s also the now is as good as time as any aspect too. I'm getting more drive to really dig into developing this topic again, so I'd be willing to help out in either case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends how deep down the rabbit hole we go. There is the Brazilian nut and the pea which were self regulated to a degree. Plus you have the option of potentially removing allergens through GE. I added a source saying they are tested for toxicity and allerginicity. HGT to humans is overstated by many so not sure we need to give it more than a passing mention. Of the two studies often cited one is misunderstood and the other would be interpreted as background by most researchers. I added the older source you mentioned, if a newer one comes up we can replace it. I think we cover gene flow to other similar (or wild-type) species adequately now, but feel free to make some adjustments. Overall I am pretty happy with our coverage of crops, although I might look for some non-food controversies. AIRcorn (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Part of my removals were just for streamlining with prejudice against fleshing those topics out if they fit better, so that all sounds pretty good. Allergenicity definitely can be pretty easily addressed in a WP:DUE fashion by mentioning that allergens are screened for as part of the regulatory process (i.e., adding a peanut allergen protein isn't going to get approved). For HGT, I’m still looking for good sources we can use here (I usually deal with the primary literature on this subject), but here’s a recent example of a primary source at least I have watch listed that's at least better quality in a parity sense. There are some older reviews that basically say HGT is not a significant risk to human or environmental health either. I’d still have to think about how to tackle this one too (maybe next week when I’m not on mobile). I don’t see this as something that would necessarily hinder the GA process and could be dealt with at a later time, so there doesn’t need to be a rush on this, but there’s also the now is as good as time as any aspect too. I'm getting more drive to really dig into developing this topic again, so I'd be willing to help out in either case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I undid one of your edits as I think it is important to mention the secondary pest concern. I will expand on it when I get time. I am not sure about removing the health introductory sentence either. From my understanding health is the major concern anti-GM groups focus on so deserves a bit more weight. I think it is important for the narrative that we outline what the concerns are before we dispel them. That is followed by the environment, which although it gets less mentioning in the media has more evidence in the reliable literature. My general thinking weight wise is two paragraphs on health (one covered by the arb wording), two on environment (one focusing on gene flow - which is probably the most significant), one paragraph covering the other issues (IP, religous etc) and one paragraph giving us an intro to the opposition (including the groups involved). AIRcorn (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I tried to streamline the controversy section a bit. It's going to be a sort of catchall either way, so if anyone else has ideas, it might be worth trying them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Please consider all my points as mere suggestions for further improvement. Not everything is required for reaching GA, including this point. My personal goal is not to pass it as GA as fast as possible, but to help improving the article as much as possible. Please feel free to skip everything you feel unreasonable. But if you are planning to get the article to FAC at some point, I have the feeling that the "Controversy" section is the weakest part of the article, and should ideally be improved before submitting to FAC. My suggestion above was one, probably ill-conceived, attempt to get the section into the right direction. This controversy is for sure of high relevance (maybe not so much for science, but for society in general), and in my opinion could be fleshed out without violating Summary style. I'm really not sure what to do precisely. It somehow remains very general and vague, without really getting to the points. A clear structure is also difficult to spot (most of the section is about food, with some bits in-between about other concerns). Maybe try to discuss concerns point by point. One more point that you may want to consider:
- This sort of stuff has basically been set aside in the last paragraph of this article (and other articles) including some environmental things to "describe the controversy". I guess I'm not sure how much more could really be included at this broad overview article yet without first fleshing out more in the daughter/granddaughter articles before assessing the WP:SUMMARY here. Considering the potential legwork needed, maybe that's more relevant of the comprehensive scope for an FA instead of GA? Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- The controversy sections are the biggest headache in all these articles. They take up most of the talk page discussions and have burnt out (sometimes unwillingly) many editors. I agree it is the weakest section here, and it is likely to remain so no matter what we do as there are so many different opinions on the topic of GMO safety and what is due weight. I think it is best to keep this as general as possible and not get too tied down in the arguments and counter arguments. We have Genetically modified food controversies for that. If it was completely up to me I would get rid of the controversy section altogether and incorporate it into other sections, but there are probably fair points to keep it in given the feelings and coverage of this issue.
- I feel we cover gene flow well enough, I could potentially explain the Mexican maize example as it is probably the most well known. I should probably do the Monarch Butterflies for the same reason too.
- Yeah I wasn't sure where to put the farmer info as it is often disputed as to whether there is any actual benefit to them from growing GM crops. It does look out of place; I will move it to the crop section where it should fit in better.
- Personally I am not interested in getting these articles to FA level. I feel the amount of fine-tuning needed is not the most efficient use of my time. I could probably get half a dozen of these articles to GA standard in the time it takes to get one to FA.
- Anyway, thanks for your patience, this section could take a while to get acceptable to everyone. AIRcorn (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's it. Good overview overall. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Forgotten comments
My apologies, I forgot two:
- I would strongly recommend to replace all blog (and similar) sources with the respective scientific paper, or to at least cite both.
- Went through the cites (there are a lot) and edited some and replaced others. Some could be better, but I feel it meets the Good Standard. If you have any in particulr you are concerned about I can focus on those. AIRcorn (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- in the form of delta endotoxin genes known as cry proteins. – does not fit together (genes are genes, proteins are proteins). What are cry proteins, can this be linked? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Cry proteins are delta endotoxins (they link to the same page). Reworded to make clearer. AIRcorn (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Would it make sense to include international regulations in the "regulations" section also (i.e, the Cartagena Protocol)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Added to the start, plus Asilomar. AIRcorn (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. This was exactly what I was looking for in a review. I will work through these with KofA over the next few days. AIRcorn (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack and Kingofaces43: I think I hve gone through most of the comments now. Sorry it took a while. Let me know what you think. AIRcorn (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have anything to add at this point. Your changes all look good from what I see. The controversy addition looks good too (notable opinions put in the right place etc.). Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think you did an amazing job, the whole thing is much better now, including the "controversy" section. Happy to pass the well-deserved GA. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have anything to add at this point. Your changes all look good from what I see. The controversy addition looks good too (notable opinions put in the right place etc.). Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Congrats on GA
Congrats and appreciation to all the editors who raised this page to a GA! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2020
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove this website: wple.net/plek/numery_2007/numer-10-2007/908-912-koszowskigoniewicz-czogala.pdf from article. This is new website about nutres. Protector164 (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've retrieved a Wayback Machine archive from 2013 for this page and amended it to the citation. MagPlex 16:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Hyphenation
Hello,
Shouldn't it be "genetically-modified organism", as "genetically" modifies (heh) "modified"? I don't know whether or not I'm right about that. Any input is appreciated. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Has been without hyphen for years. Assume there is a consensus. David notMD (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- See MOS:HYPHEN #3, bullet 4. Generally no hyphens after -ly adverbs because they are already assumed to be modifying the subsequent word. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Good point, CWenger. I hadn't read that. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
GMO companies and their involvement.
During my research on crops and their modification it should be noted under controversies the companies that drive these controversial topics and how they are involved in the process of GMOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantasukra (talk • contribs) 00:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Controversies GMO companies involved
Hello, I would like to add this into the controversies section.
The companies involved in the controversies how they function in the process of GMOs and chemicals tied to crop GMOs.
"Monsanto and Bayer have become one of the largest companies that control the seed and pesticide market in both the united states and Europe now that their deal is complete. These are one of the major players in the GMO world that drive new innovative ways to have new GMOs this also includes Pesticides and herbicides that are used in crops."
--Shantasukra (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have removed the addition. The generalizations are not in line with how sourced statements typically appear on wikipedia, and overall language is vague, "new innovative ways to have new GMOs" particularly so. I see that you are a student editor, and I suggest that you choose a different area of focus. If you contact the wikiEdu staff assigned to your class, they can help you switch. GMO-related pages are an area of particular controversy on wikipedia and subject to WP:1RR. Most GMO-related articles are also fairly mature articles, and are going to be hard for a new editor to make improvements to even apart from the 1RR issue.Dialectric (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- GA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Technology
- GA-Class vital articles in Technology
- GA-Class Molecular Biology articles
- Unknown-importance Molecular Biology articles
- GA-Class Genetics articles
- Top-importance Genetics articles
- WikiProject Genetics articles
- Genetics articles needing attention
- GA-Class MCB articles
- Mid-importance MCB articles
- WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology articles
- MCB articles needing attention
- Molecular Biology articles needing attention
- All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
- GA-Class Environment articles
- Mid-importance Environment articles
- GA-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- GA-Class Science Policy articles
- High-importance Science Policy articles
- Top-importance and Start-Class MCB articles