| Revision as of 08:49, 2 March 2015 editLfstevens (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,378 edits →Misleading presentation: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:37, 2 March 2015 edit undoDavid Tornheim (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers16,949 edits →Misleading presentation: yes, add information about gmo critics concerns about inadequate testingNext edit → | ||
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
| I think it is really important that people have a place to go, to learn about what ''actual food'' out there is GM. That content didn't exist in WP before we built it. ] (]) 22:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | I think it is really important that people have a place to go, to learn about what ''actual food'' out there is GM. That content didn't exist in WP before we built it. ] (]) 22:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :It is completely possible that some future GM food might be hazardous to humans. Genetics, while rapidly advancing, is still in its infancy. To assert that some speculated food will be harmful is not helpful. Better to talk about whatever flaws may exist in today's risk assessments and testing protocols. You can't prove that every GM food will be safe (or prove any other prediction.) You can assess the safety of today's products and discuss the risks of today's procedures producing some future harm. That's it. ] (]) 08:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | :It is completely possible that some future GM food might be hazardous to humans. Genetics, while rapidly advancing, is still in its infancy. To assert that some speculated food will be harmful is not helpful. Better to talk about whatever flaws may exist in today's risk assessments and testing protocols. You can't prove that every GM food will be safe (or prove any other prediction.) You can assess the safety of today's products and discuss the risks of today's procedures producing some future harm. That's it. ] (]) 08:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::I agree with ] (]). This is one of the major criticisms by GMO critics--insufficient testing. The articles does not reflect that and is therefore lacks NPOV. Let's include information from critics in both the lede and the article about concerns of insufficient testing and showing the major differences between the U.S. and Europe and nations that have GMO bans. None of this is articulated in the article, but instead there is vague language with "big" words like "regulation" and "differences" but no details with useful information. Consumers need to know the difference in regulation between different countries, so they know what is possible, not just which things products are GMO--which incidentally they would know if the industry, AMA, etc. did not so vigorously oppose labelling.] (]) 10:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Edit request== | ==Edit request== | ||
Revision as of 10:37, 2 March 2015
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetically modified food article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology
Template:WikiProject GeneticsPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 | Text and/or other creative content from Food biotechnology was copied or moved into Genetically modified food on January 1, 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Republished peer reviewed study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize
Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (24 June 2014), Environmental Sciences Europe
‘Significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures’
The study examines the health effects on rats of eating Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and adjuvants) in drinking water. It found:
- “Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related.
- “In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater.
- “In females, all treatment groups showed a two- to threefold increase in mortality, and deaths were earlier.
- “This difference was also evident in three male groups fed with GM maize.
- “All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable.
- “Females developed large mammary tumors more frequently and before controls;
- “the pituitary was the second most disabled organ;
“the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments.
“Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted.
“These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic consequences.
“Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.”
The paper concludes: ”Taken together, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work reveal the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes.
“They also show that the conclusion of the Monsanto authors that the initial indications of organ toxicity found in their 90-day experiment were not ‘biologically meaningful’ is not justifiable.
“We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and complete pesticide formulations must be evaluated thoroughly in long-term studies to measure their potential toxic effects.”
IjonTichy (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there's anything we could include on this page about it. It's mainly just a repeat of the retracted the study, so all the same criticisms of the original study design apply that make it an unreliable source for the claims above. Plus it's primary literature, which in a topic like this we typically avoid like the plague when it comes to WP:MEDRS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- and that content goes primarily in the Seralini affair article - it is already there. The Seralini affair article has a WP:SUMMARY in the Genetically modified foods controversies article. The Seralini affair is not currently mentioned in the lead of the GM foods controversies article, and so is not present in this article, which in turn has a WP:SUMMARY section of the Genetically modified foods controversies article. So it doesn't belong here. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Dear Kingofaces43 and Jytdog, thank you for the feedback. And thanks for informing me that we have an article on the Seralini affair. I've continued the discussion there. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
debate on GM food
For me GM foods are very harmful as it changes the genetic quality and can make it harmful to consume it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.37.130 (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2014
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vandana-shiva/from-seeds-of-suicide-to_b_192419.html 203.192.255.248 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Please include details as listed on posts above, is wikipedia paid by these private comnpanies to hide the real danger of gmo seeds. Many times ion the article its mentioned that genetically modified crops are same as conventional, just read about the dangers in above link. It lead to suicide of 250,000 farmers in india and its not even mentioned once that how they completely destroy the farming economy, the land, the crops, etc.
If wikipedia is not a paid source of private corporates, prove it!!!
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Misleading presentation
The statement that GM foods on the market pose no risk is subtly different from the statement that GMOs carry no potential risk. In the lede, the cited sources do support the statement about foods "on the market" but they don't support the idea that there is no potential risk from GM foods. Yet the potential risks aren't even mentioned in the lede. Howunusual (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point. This article is about actual, not theoretical, GM food. The article on GM controversies goes into the potential risks. Jytdog (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- The article is about the broad topic of genetic modification of food, not just the GM food that is currently on the market. At least, that is a natural assumption for readers to make. So, there is a bit of sleight of hand, in making a statement--in the lede--about a broad scientific consensus that is, actually, only true of food currently on the market. Howunusual (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- the article is currently about actual, not theoretical, GM food. we can of course discuss broadening the scope... Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- The article is about the broad topic of genetic modification of food, not just the GM food that is currently on the market. At least, that is a natural assumption for readers to make. So, there is a bit of sleight of hand, in making a statement--in the lede--about a broad scientific consensus that is, actually, only true of food currently on the market. Howunusual (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Howunusual (talk): Thank you for your suggestion. You are correct. Jytdog says that "the article is currently about actual, not theoretical, GM food." Who decided that? I don't agree with that assumption, and it is not stated in the article. I agree with Howunusual (talk) that it is a "sleight of hand", and deliberately misleading. Can we agree to add the content Howunusual (talk) suggested? David Tornheim (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no sleight of hand.. the article is as clear as it could be.
The focus on actual food as opposed to theoretical food (?) or products in development, was decided back when the the articles were reorganized so they would each cover a distinct aspect - we have one on the basic science (Genetic engineering); one broadly covering the various kinds of organisms that have been modified, and why (Genetically modified organism) (which has many, many subarticles); one on the actual crops that have been modified, really focused on the crops themselves and how they are used in agriculture - which was completely lacking when we started - (Genetically modified crops) and one on the resulting food (this one). There are two articles on regulation (Regulation of genetically modified organisms focused on the basic science, and Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms which is focused more on commercialization - the actual release of them into the world). Finally, because the controversies cut across all of them, and had come to dominate all of them in a thicket-y, repetitious, and even self-contradictory way, we created a Genetically modified food controversies article that covered all of it in one place, and per WP:SUMMARY, included a summary of that article in each of the others. We did the same thing with the regulation-of-release article. You will find those two summary sections near the end of each of the articles above, and a set of links at the top orienting the reader where other related topics are. It has worked well to keep the content well-organized and non-overlapping for a few years now. We can discuss a re-organization, anytime you like. It should take the other, related articles into account.
I think it is really important that people have a place to go, to learn about what actual food out there is GM. That content didn't exist in WP before we built it. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is completely possible that some future GM food might be hazardous to humans. Genetics, while rapidly advancing, is still in its infancy. To assert that some speculated food will be harmful is not helpful. Better to talk about whatever flaws may exist in today's risk assessments and testing protocols. You can't prove that every GM food will be safe (or prove any other prediction.) You can assess the safety of today's products and discuss the risks of today's procedures producing some future harm. That's it. Lfstevens (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Lfstevens (talk). This is one of the major criticisms by GMO critics--insufficient testing. The articles does not reflect that and is therefore lacks NPOV. Let's include information from critics in both the lede and the article about concerns of insufficient testing and showing the major differences between the U.S. and Europe and nations that have GMO bans. None of this is articulated in the article, but instead there is vague language with "big" words like "regulation" and "differences" but no details with useful information. Consumers need to know the difference in regulation between different countries, so they know what is possible, not just which things products are GMO--which incidentally they would know if the industry, AMA, etc. did not so vigorously oppose labelling.David Tornheim (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Edit request
In the introduction, it would be appropriate to note that genetic modification simply refers to the editing of DNA sequence, and cannot be classified as entirely dangerous or not. It depends on the genes being altered. Much like changes in the human genome can be favorable (e.g. HIV resistance through Ccr5 polymorphism), unfavorable (e.g. CFTR mutation causing cystic fibrosis), or context-dependent (e.g. polymorphism for sickle cell anemia).
Also, what is required to be able to edit this page? I have a PhD from Harvard. Thanks. CellbioPhD (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)cellbiophd
- anyone can edit the page. if your edit is not good, it will be reverted. this is natural especially when you are learning, so don't take it personally. please read the introduction again. it does not say that any genetic modification is safe. what it says is very carefully worded. please the comment above, as well. Jytdog (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- CellbioPhD (talk): Thank you for your suggestion. Can we all agree this should be added to the article? David Tornheim (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete reference to GMO potatoes
On this page (Genetically Modified Foods) in the section labeled Foods with protein or DNA remaining from GMOs, the following sentence appears:
"There are currently no transgenic potatoes marketed for human consumption."
This is no longer true, according to the third paragraph following, about the USDA approval and release to the market of the Simplot company's Innate potato.
This sentence needs to be deleted.
172.56.20.30 (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)David Kinne
Done, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Food and drink articles
- High-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- B-Class Agriculture articles
- Mid-importance Agriculture articles
- WikiProject Agriculture articles
- B-Class Invention articles
- Unknown-importance Invention articles
- WikiProject Invention articles