Talk:Genetically modified food

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 01:02, 24 June 2014 (→"For related content" hatnote: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:02, 24 June 2014 by Jytdog (talk | contribs) (→"For related content" hatnote: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 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.

Food and drink High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Agriculture Mid‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Invention

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WAP assignment

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.

Time limit needed on RfC and "broad scientific consensus"?

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

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

For example, does that consensus include GMO apples, currently under regulatory review in the US and Canada? DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a date will inaccurately give the impression that the consensus has changed, when we'd be better off changing the wording outright if that consensus were to change. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That would give the implication that the consensus has changed when there is no evidence that it has. When and if evidence exists that the consensus has changed, then the appropriate changes would be made. BlackHades (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point. The scientific consensus is based on a few different things, but primarily it is based on an understanding of the biology involved in making a GM crop, the DNA and proteins involved, the key kinds of toxicity that are possible, and the regulatory process (which looks for those toxicities, and others). So anything that makes it through the regulatory process is therefore just like everything that came before, safety-wise. And there has still been no compelling experiment done, or finding made, that overturns any of the things upon which the consensus is based (things like "electron-microscope organisms' are pseudoscience that don't affect mainstream science). It would take something like that to make it worthwhile to date the consensus - some event that actually changed the consensus. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Let me quote from above review: "However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies (Domingo, 2007). The scientific community may finally be able to critically evaluate and discuss all that information, which was not possible until now. Scientists know quite well how different may be the information published in reputed international journals, which has been submitted to peer-review processes, from those general comments/reports not submitted to this selective procedure. "

This issue has been talked to death. Please review the Talk page above, and the archives. We even had a Request for Comment on it, which you can read here. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I've read that. Apparently no consensus in the discussion came out, and frankly, I didn't find the discussions very helpful, but rather of semantic nature. The quotation I inserted above is from a peer-reviewed, scientific journal, and is a REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS on the topic; it is not, in comparison as quoted somewhere in the Talk page, from some unreliable news report. Broad agreement and consensus means something else. It would be good if people who make claims about scientific literature actually read it. Sorry for being so direct -- please do not misunderstand, I do not mean to attack with this. In conclusion: we clearly have a scientific review of scientific literature, summarizing findings about research on the safety of GMO food: conclusions are that the effects from GMO food in general are unclear, and that much literature is clearly biased. This is hardly reflected in the phrase 'there is broad scientific consensus'. BTW, Talking something to death does not imply the problem was solved! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbarmeter (talk • contribs) 18:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to think that scientific consensus means unanimity. It does not mean unanimity.Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

To put Domingo in context of the wider scientific community, see articles like this and this as well as the many sources that are provided in support of the statement of consensus. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I do certainly NOT mean unanimity. Since you like to use Misplaced Pages itself for definitions, let me quote: "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity." So, I mean consensus in the way it's written black on white here: as a general agreement, implying that (at least) 50% scientists believe that. I do not see that this is the case, in particular when referring to the review above.

Thanks for the references. As I see it, many scientists, according to the Nature article, think that many studies allow not to make strong conclusions as of the safety of GMO. I just see that many scientists agree that they cannot tell what possible long term effects are? If that's what you understand under 'broad scientific consensus that GMO food is not more harmful than normal food', fine. It just seems to me worth pointing out that long-term effects are unknown, and I don't see that the Misplaced Pages article is representative of this statement. Correct me if I missed this somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.222.49 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 March 2014 UTC (UTC)

we don't know the long term effects of eating any food. please think about that, and what that means. Please also see this article, especially the section starting in the 2nd column, called "Selection of chemicals to be ranked." Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion above

I second this article is not neutrally written. 'Some' instead of 'broad' would be much more appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.229.58 (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Some" would imply a lack of scientific consensus and therefore would be wp:weasel. Please show wp:RS, preferably wp:MEDRS supporting your assertions. Jim1138 (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

And 'We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.229.58 (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi, Would you consider this one main stream? 'Thus, the finding of human effects consistent with impaired retinoic signaling in agricultural areas with heavy RoundUp use raises concern about the potential health effects of heavy herbicide usage. Although these studies do not prove that RoundUp/glyphosate creates unwarranted human risks, they raise significant concerns.' It has been stated in the other article Genetically modified food controversies that genetically modified foods have lead to a increase in RoundUp use so even if the actually GM crop is safe, to say the food on the market doesn't pose a greater risk doesn't seem accurate. My professor was actually impressed that instead of turning in my paper on GM crops that I instead was editing Misplaced Pages :)67.201.229.58 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Gabe

Hi, as I wrote on your Talk page, please slow down, take your time, and learn how things work here, in terms of policies and guidelines. More on point, please read the many, many sources we have provided (and there are even more supporting the consensus statement in the genetically modified food controversies article), and please read the RfC (request for comment) that I linked to above, which validated the consensus statement and its sources, based on WP policies and guidelines. I recognize that there are LOTS of websites out there that preach a very black-and-white and negative picture of GM food. There is a lot of passion, and a lot of ignorance, and a lot of exaggeration out there. Real world, the mainstream scientific community recognizes that a) conventional food is not 100% safe (nothing is); b) food derived from currently marketed GM crops is not substantially different from conventional food, and there is no legitimate theory as to why it might be. With respect to human exposure to any herbicide or pesticide while it is being used in the field, that is not relevant to exposure you get from eating food derived from GM crops, and the consensus statement doesn't speak to that - that is off topic. With respect to pesticide residues on food - pesticide residues on food are regulated, and the exposure you get to glyphosate and other pesticides through eating food has been studied, and levels set that are dramatically lower than levels that are dangerous. (that is not to say that rarely - from time to time - levels exceed regulation, and when they do, there is trouble). And in any case most food derived from GM crops is highly processed and just a part of the actual food you eat -- sugar from GM sugar beets is highly refined pure sucrose, just like sugar from conventional sugar beets. Soy, corn, cottonseed.. all are (of course) washed before they are processed into milled grain or oil or what have you. Please slow down, and think carefully. I get it that you find the scientific consensus statement jarring; that it is new to you doesn't make it wrong. Until you have caught up with the sources that are actually used here, and with the RfC and past discussions, please don't just grab random arguments and sources and throw them at the statement. Please catch up with the discussion. Thanks!Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't speak to your source with the dissenters to the AAAS statement. Yep, there are dissenters from the consensus. There always are, and the fact that they exist doesn't change the fact that there is a consensus. As I wrote above, the consensus is very solidly grounded based on the actual science that has been to date, and no science has emerged to change it. The Seralini 2012 paper ~could have~ been consensus-changing had that study been done soundly (or could have backed the consensus!) but we will never know b/c the data is basically not interpretable. Other long-term feeding studies are underway, more rigorously designed, and they might show us something. But as of 2014 there is no good evidence that food from currently marketed GM crops is harmful, and more importantly no good hypotheses to explain why it would be. Please do not bring arguments as to why some theoretical product might be harmful (e.g. "could cause allergy") - the risks in the technology are understood and those kinds of things are tested for, before products are put on the market. The consensus statement is about currently marketed food from GM crops - not about any theoretical GM crop that could be made.Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Labelling

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

Wheat

There is no mention whatsoever of wheat in the article. Wheat is modified to withstand herbicides, pesticides and drought. Seems to me that would increase our ingestion of poison in our diet, since wheat is in so many processed foods. Besides that, GMO wheat products spike blood sugar faster than eating pure sugar.108.194.197.251 (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It is my understanding that there is no GM wheat on the market, at all, and there never has been. So nGM wheat is not in anyone's diet to cause any kind of sugar spike. If you have any reliable sources for GM wheat actually being on the market, or for any effects on humans who eat GM wheat, I would be very very interested to see them and would be happy to incorporate that information and sources into the article. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog is correct. No GM wheat is on the market at the moment. It has undergone lots of selective breeding breeding, which some people might consider genetic modification, but this does not apply to the definition we use here. It is being developed for various traits though and may arrive in the future. BTW I don't beleive any crops have been released commercially that are drought resistant. AIRcorn (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

hey User:Aircorn actually Monsanto has a drought-resistant corn on the market, called droughtgard - here is a good update on what's happening on that front. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Take a break from this area for a couple of months and something new comes out. Is it the maize that curls its leaves? We should probably mention it somewhere. AIRcorn (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a cold shock protein. Mentioned here and here. :) Jytdog (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

FDA policy on labels

@Jytdog: requested discussion of my change from:

no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the US FDA.

to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

the food safety of GE crops and animals, and ingredients derived from them, has been reviewed by the FDA prior to introduction of all new GE varieties commercialized to date

Any thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! I see what you are saying about the existing language, and I understand your desire to improve it. The quote we provide in the ref is "To date, no material differences in composition or safety of commercialized GE crops have been identified that would justify a label based on the GE nature of the product." The current text says "Although labeling of genetically modified organism (GMO) products in the marketplace is required in 64 countries, it is not required in the United States and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the US FDA." SO how about the last part be changed to: ", it is not required in the United States law, and the FDA has found no differences in the composition or safety of currently marketed GM food that would justify a label based on the product's origin." Does that work for you? Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

went with "in the United States, there is general requirement that GMO foods must be labelled as such. The FDA's policy is to require a specific label if there are significant differences in composition or differences that are material to health, but it has not found any such differences in any GMO food currently approved for sale." Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, are you sure you didn't mean, "in the United States, there is no general requirement that GMO foods must be labelled as such"? I'm not aware of any general requirement for labeling GMO foods here, so I'm assuming that was just a typo/missing word? Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

wow, that was a boner. Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"For related content" hatnote

I've never seen such a hatnote on any other article. It is blatantly opposed to Misplaced Pages style conventions; essentially a "See also" list of associative links disguised as a hatnote. "Genetically modified food" is not an ambiguous title. There is no reason to present people with links to related content at this prominent position, which is specifically to guide readers who are likely to have arrived at the wrong article. WP:RELATED specifically discourages hatnotes merely linking to related content, and does not mention any exceptions. Therefore, I have removed the hatnote again. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for finally opening a discussion. There is a suite of related articles on GM matters. A few years ago these articles were a complete mess, with much overlapping content (most of negative anti-GMO stuff). A group of us went through and cleaned them up and sorted content to minimize overlap. We put the hatnotes at the top ofeach article in the suite of articles to help people who would edit content related to one back in to the wrong one, get to the right place. This is about editing Misplaced Pages to keep articles well-related to one another - not just about editing a single article. It has been stable for a couple of years now - you are the first person in ages who has made any objection. It works. We should keep it, so that it can continue working. I acknowledge that this is a discussion of preferences - there is no policy or guideline that governs this. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Categories: