Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:27, 7 March 2015

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 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Template:Vital article Template:WikiProject GeneticsTemplate:Wikiproject MCB

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

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. There is a seperate page for genetically modified tomatoes; should there be one for other fruits and vegetables?

1. Sala, F.; Manuela Rigano, M.; Barbante, A.; Basso, B.; Walmsley, AM; Castiglione, S (January 2003). "Vaccine antigen production in transgenic plants: strategies, gene constructs and perspectives". Vaccine. 21 (7–8): 803–8. PMID 23888738. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

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:

, , section 3.7,

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.

203.176.132.186 (talk) 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. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with 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. Gaba 13:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

sounds good thanks Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the original objections of user: 203.176.132.186 (talk). The statement in the article lacks NPOV. The change in the statement by Gaba does not correct the problem at all. David Tornheim (talk) 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.1.229.130.160 (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Domestication is discussed in the cited Main article, History of genetic engineering. 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. Jytdog (talk) 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. Gaba 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" Jytdog (talk) 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. 65.68.190.60 (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

as per the Talk page guidelines, 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. Jytdog (talk) 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. 65.68.190.60 (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there some specific content in the article that you are suggesting be changed? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 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.65.68.190.60 (talk) 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 WP:RS) 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 WP:VERIFY). I realize that you may find my question frustrating but I am trying to work with you, as we work in Misplaced Pages. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 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: : "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 : "genetically modified organism: an organism or microorganism whose genetic material has been altered by means of genetic engineering."

From WHO, the World Health Organization, : "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 : "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 : "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. 75.32.59.71 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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 domesticated animals in 12,000 BC and plants around 10,000 BC. Genetic engineering, the direct transfer of DNA from one organism to another, was first accomplished by Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen 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. Jytdog (talk) 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. 75.32.59.71 (talk) 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! Jytdog (talk) 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). 209.6.253.92 (talk) 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 this take care of your concern? Jytdog (talk) 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. 209.6.253.92 (talk) 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. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

1. http://hort201.tamu.edu/YouthAdventureProgram/GeneticEngineering/GeneticEngineering.html
2. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gmo
3. http://www.who.int/topics/food_genetically_modified/en/
4. http://faq.aces.uiuc.edu/?project_id=28&faq_id=583
5. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2772e/y2772e04.htm

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. Unmismoobjetivo (talk) 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, here. Misplaced Pages also has an article on all the hoopla around that article and its retraction: Seralini affair. 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! Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with user Unmismoobjetivo (talk). 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):

• ENSSR article: "Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety"
• Food & Water Watch Article: "The so-called scientific 'consensus': Why the debate on GMO safety is not over"
• GM Watch publishing excerpts from above above F&WW article immediately above.
• Beyond GMO article: "Who says GMOs are safe? (and who says they’re not)"
• This law review
• This published scientific Study, PubMed:18989835 "Health risks of genetically modified foods."

David Tornheim (talk) 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. Drbellard (talk) 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! OrphB (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi 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, WP:NPOV, specifically this section WP:PSCI, and also the guideline that fleshes out that section, WP:FRINGE. 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 WP:SUMMARY. 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. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2014 (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.

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.

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.

"…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. Xkit (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum 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 WP:SUMMARY of the main article, Genetically modified food controversies. 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.Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with user OrphB (talk) 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. David Tornheim (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Systemic Bias tag

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, the Russian scientific community. 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. LesVegas (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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? WP:FRINGE 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. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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". LesVegas (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

science does not vary around the world. That is a WP:FRINGE 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. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC) per t:POV 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 WP:PSCI section of WP:NPOV we don't give weight to fringe perspectives (see the guideline that fleshes out PSCI, WP:FRINGE) Please establish a basis for problems with NPOV before tagging the article. Please do not edit war over this. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC) (reworded - doesn't change meaning Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC))

this source would seem to disagree that there is a lot of regional variation about the safety of GMO. Yobol (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

yes, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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? LesVegas (talk) 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: Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies/Archive_6#Request_for_comment_on_.22broad_scientific_consensus.22 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). Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Russia’s National Association for Genetic Safety isn't the "Russian Scientific Community" and as Jytdog has pointer out, this point has already been discussed at length over at genetically modified food controversies 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. SmartSE (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the link, 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. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with LesVegas (talk). There is no "scientific consensus" on the safety of GMO products. I provided WP:RS in a separate section of this talk page. David Tornheim (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Black swan paper

under discussion here Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#The_Precautionary_Principle_.28with_Application_to_the_Genetic_Modification_of_Organisms.29 Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Safety Switch

Scientists Give Genetically Modified Organisms A Safety Switch. can this source be cited in the article? IjonTichy (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Interesting - this is basically new versions of, and a positive spin on, terminator technology 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! Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No so-called "scientific consensus"

As I have mentioned in the Genetically modified food controversy talk page here (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 WP:OR, 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.

David Tornheim (talk) 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 here. But we should keep the current discussion in one place, as you linked to above: here. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Treatment of new editors

Jytdog is introducing his/herself on new user talk pages, something that I am okay with as long as it is done in an NPOV way. I am not sure if there is a policy about such interaction. This is a recent post on a new user's talk page. Although the introduction talking about various articles is not necessarily a problem to me--we might agree to disagree on Jytdog's description of what each article's purpose and scope is--the paragraph about the article's being "mature" is a problem. It gives the suggestion that the articles are "done" and have covered everything there is to be covered--something I strongly disagree with. Instead, I mentioned there that the new user should be INVITED to make CONSTRUCTIVE and POSITIVE CHANGES per WP:BOLD and that if there is opposition to changes, discussion should take place on the relevant talk page(s). I think too much discussion of the specifics of the GMO articles are taking place on user pages instead of here--this is certainly complicated by the fact that "scientific consensus" claim is on multiple articles. I acknowledge that I mentioned my concerns about NPOV regarding GMO article's on Jimbo's page here as part of a bigger problem of PR materials controlling article content, which was the subject of that discussion. I mentioned another concern I have about how new users are being treated when they are trying to make NPOV changes to GMO articles here David Tornheim (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Top-importance and Start-Class MCB articles