Misplaced Pages

Talk:Genetically modified food controversies

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk | contribs) at 23:49, 26 February 2015 (→Apparently Flawed FDA Risk Assessments: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:49, 26 February 2015 by IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk | contribs) (→Apparently Flawed FDA Risk Assessments: response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Genetically modified food controversies. 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 food controversies at the Reference desk.
Genetically modified food controversies received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetically modified food controversies article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 21 days 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetically modified food controversies article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 21 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:WikiProject Genetics Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFood and drink Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-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:
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.
WikiProject iconEconomics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-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.
WikiProject iconAgriculture Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12


This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Substantial Equivalence

I took out the statement:

The safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies starts with an evaluation of whether or not the food is substantially equivalent to non-genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption.

This is not universally true, the regulation varies by country. The first source cited goes to a broken link. The second source is related to U.S. policy and is not ubiquitous. The last source appears simply to argue in favor of the the substantial equivalence method.

I'm not sure why Jytdog reverted my deletion. I had already informed Jytdog on my talk page that this statement is incorrect and unjustifiable.

This policy is not used in the E.U. See: Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union. GMO regulation varies widely by country. See: Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms David Tornheim (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I provided the reason for my reversion in my edit note, here. let me know what is not clear there. thanks for pointing out the dead link. fixed that. Added another source, with quote: "The guiding principle in the evaluation of BD foods by regulatory agencies in Europe and the U.S. is that their human and environmental safety is most effectively considered, relative to comparable products and processes currently in use. From this arises the concept of 'substantial equivalence.'" It is not a policy, and this article does not call it a policy. it is a principle. Please react to what the article actually says. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
with regard to South Africa: The South African Department of Health states that: " assessments are done case-by-case and step-by-step. As with all new experiences comparisons with known foods are constantly made. This approach, which is the stating point for risk assessment of genetically modified food, is often called substantial equivalency". Source: Fikremarkos Merso Birhanu. Gentically Modified Organisms in Africa: Regulating a Threat or Opportunity? Chapter 9 (pp 227-253) in The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Approaches. Eds Luc Bodiguel, Michael Cardwell. Oxford University Press, 2010 ISBN 9780199542482. page. 241
Canada does the same. see Jane Matthews Glenn. The Coexistence of Genetically Modified and Non-genetially modified Agriculture in Canada: A Courtroom Drama. Chapter 10 (pp 254-273) in The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Approaches. Eds Luc Bodiguel, Michael Cardwell. Oxford University Press, 2010 ISBN 9780199542482. page. 266
Mercosur also uses the principle. See Rosario Silva Gilli. Genetically Modified Organisms in MERCOSUR. Chapter 11 (pp 274-298) in The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Approaches. Eds Luc Bodiguel, Michael Cardwell. Oxford University Press, 2010 ISBN 9780199542482. page 283 Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
same book, different chapter, more generally: See Margaret Rosso Grossman. Genetically Modified Crops and Food in the United States: The Federal Regulatory Framework, State Measures, and Liability in Tort. Chapter 12 (pp 299-336) in The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Approaches. Eds Luc Bodiguel, Michael Cardwell. Oxford University Press, 2010 ISBN 9780199542482. pp 311-312 which says: "In its 1992 Policy Statement, the FDA indicated that the scientific concepts described 'are consistent with the concepts of substantial equivalence of new foods' articulated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and principles for assessment of food safety established by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Substantial equivalence is 'regulatory shorthand for defining those new foods that do not raise safety issues that require special, intensive, case by case scutiny. It is "an internationally recognized standard that measures whether a biotech food or crop shares similar health and nutritional characteristics with its conventional counterpart". Substantial equivalence is not a safety assessment, Instead, it is a "comparative approach and embodies the idea that existing traditionally produced foods can serve as a reference to evaluate the safety of genetically modified foods."
It is not a policy - it is principle used globally as a starting point for regulatory assessment, as our article says. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional references. I did some additional searching specifically on E.U. for substantial equivalence, and it appears to be a part of the process for GMO's:
"The term substantial equivalence is also referred to in the Regulation(EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients which came into force in the member states of the European Union on 15 May 1997."
* * *
"This procedure does not apply to novel foods containing, or consisting of, GMOs. For the placing on the market of this category of novel foods, authorisations are mandatory, even if the result of the safety assessment may prove their substantial equivalence to conventional foods."
http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/349/schauzu.pdf source PDF link
I believe the pertinent EU Reg is:
"Regulation (EC) No 258/97 also provides for a notification procedure for novel foods which are substantially equivalent to existing foods. Whilst substantial equivalence is a key step in the procedure for assessment of the safety of genetically modified foods, it is not a safety assessment in itself. In order to ensure clarity, transparency and a harmonised framework for authorisation of genetically modified food, this notification procedure should be abandoned in respect of genetically modified foods" source link
I have no idea if the link I provides is of a draft, actual Reg that was passed, or an older version that has been changed. For now, I will assume that indeed the "substantial equivalence" explained in these two documents I just dug up is part of the process of the E.U. approval in addition to, and not instead of, all of the other additional mandated testing described that is not required in the U.S.
So I understand the defense of the above line about "substantial equivalence" now. The line may indeed be technically correct, but it is part of a bigger problem, that I am trying to address: lack of NPOV, lack of balance and that it is slanted. I see another user raised this issue and was quickly scared off by Jytdog. That user's objections were on point--unfortunately, they were just archived, so I will try to resurrect some of those concerns. I will start a new topic on these issues and see if progress can be made to address the major problems the user raised, which have not been addressed. I am sad that new user, who probably did not understand the process well enough to stick around, is no longer with us and will not be able to participate in the discussion.David Tornheim (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
glad this one is laid to rest. my sense is, that as with this one, when you dig into the next specific thing, you will find that the article as it stands is on point. it's the same process i went through, anyway. if you find something wrong we can of course work to fix it. the article is better now, with stronger sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

David Tornheim has been canvassing with regard to this article. I left a warning for him here and put the recruiting template at the top of this Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Jtydog became aware of this message almost immediately (before 2 or 3 of the the people I contacted made any response), but only waited until now to raise this objection, making good on the threat that things would get "ugly" if I did not remove reference to this article on my talk page, because it showed Pro-GMO "hero" Pamela Ronald in a less that positive light. I will respond later to why I contacted the four people.David Tornheim (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
No, actually I watch WhatamIdoing's Talk page and I saw the Talkback you left on her talk page at 09:20, 15 February 2015 which led me to the discussion on Gandy's page and the rest of your posts. I thought about what to do about the canvassing a bit, then decided to provide the notice to you and post here. Simple. You should not make assumptions about other people, and you especially should not put them in edit notes, where you cannot go back and fix them. And your behavior is WP:CANVASSing - it doesn't matter why you did it. The behavior is out of bounds. Please stop. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Response to Alleged Canvassing
For about a week I ceased all communication with any user about GMO to show I do not take such allegations of Canvassing lightly. I did not and do not believe it was canvassing, but I understand how it may give the appearance of canvassing, and I have done my best to address concerns raised by Jytdog by not speaking to anyone about GMO during that week. The effect has been to chill communication about GMO that might have been productive. I am hoping we can resume more healthy communication and drop various accusations and focus on improving this and other GMO articles. I will assume Jytdog in "good faith" made the allegation, and I would like that he and others will assume "good faith" in the trying to understanding the reasons I contacted the four users, which I will explain here. And then we can move forward. In particular, I have major concerns that the article in many places, especially in the lead, lacks NPOV and that those who have tried to address it appear to have been be so exasperated by drama, new users have been accused of breaking the rules when they raised the issue, etc., that they left the page, or left Misplaced Pages entirely. That's not healthy and I hope we can make for more healthy communication here that keep users from leaving these pages frustrated and angry.
<t>Based on the content of the article, I suspected (and others have too) that there have been COI edits. However, until there is solid evidence--which is very difficult to obtain because of Misplaced Pages's anonymity and privacy rules (an issue raised by Doc James--I am not going to accuse anyone of COI. I am all ears on how to address corruption of content and slant from COI edits and paid editors whose objective is to defend and insert their employer POV and not to improve the article. My purpose in contacting the users was twofold: (1) To get advice on how to proceed without immediately stepping on toes and reigniting past drama and disputes (2) To avoid running into trouble, drama, accusations, etc. with anyone who might have COI or be a paid PR person, who might see me as a threat to their PR agenda slant and free advertising that they so eagerly want to be in the article instead of a balanced quality article that accurately and fairly describes concerns raised by GMO critics like Jeffrey Smith in GMO Roulette (if you have not seen this film, just watch 5 minutes of the 17 minute trailer, please). I did not want to make the same mistakes that others have made when addressing NPOV issues and COI concerns. I think that should be obvious from the messages I sent to them. Unfortunately, by doing this outreach, I ended up being accused of canvassing. Regardless, I have stopped the behavior in question, and am now moving forward to address the NPOV concerns. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
As I wrote above, your reasoning is not relevant. The behavior was canvassing. It is not ambiguous. You have been warned. If you continue to canvass, I will bring you to ANI and I am confident that you will be blocked for it; this is one of clearest cases I have ever seen. If you have concerns about this article, this is the place to raise them. That is the point of the guideline. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 08:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, per the talk page guidelines, this page is not a discussion forum on the general topic. Please use this page to discuss specific issues with the content of this article. And please discuss content, not contributors. This is all Misplaced Pages 101 stuff. If you are not familiar with the talk page guidelines, please read them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Contamination" vs. "Mixed"

The last sentence of the lead contains the wording "environment and nature" unless there is a major difference between these two words and the effect of genetic modification affects the two in different ways I suggest changing to "natural environment". I also have concerns over the beginning of the same sentence, "Concerns include contamination of the non-genetically modified food supply", this particular concern really needs to be attributed and the language toned down from the negative "contaminated" to the neutral "mixed". It requires attribution as it's very much a fringe concern; most people wouldn't care if corn was mixed with their corn, I mean I can think of a few factors which have an actual detectable impact on the chemical composition of corn that no one cares about. 70.50.123.188 (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I made the change. I imagine the first bit might have come from environment meaning farm fields and nature being uncultivated land, but I agree that's pretty ambiguous even then. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree and have reverted that edit. "Toning it down" only serves the purpose to marginalize the concerns raised by GMO critics. It is not a "fringe" concern. If you need a RS, that should be easy to find. David Tornheim (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I see that Thargor Orlando has changed the word "contaminated" back to the inappropriate word "mixed," saying in the comments, "Contaminating implies something more negative than necessary. Discuss this change on talk". diff. I await his/her explanation. The word contaminate is the more appropriate word. A search on the word contaminate/contamination comes up 28 times in the document. From the first page of substantive text (page 3 of the document):
1.0 Executive summary
1.1 The CIEH believes that the Defra consultation on the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops is fundamentally flawed in that the government should be proposing measures to prevent the contamination of non-GM and organic crops and not permitting GM contamination of these crops to become routine. .
The cited document is: here. This is a typical example of the NPOV problem where industry slant has taken over, making a legitimate concern sound meaningless. "Mixing" does not represent the views of the document accurately at all.David Tornheim (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the CIEH is a trade publication, and using "contamination" assumes a legitimate concern where none exists in the relevant area. The concerns in this case are not supported by the science in terms of genetically modified foods "contaminating" any supply, but the concern of GMOs mixing into the supply is a valid one, which is why we've opted to use mix. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thargor Orlando wrote: "The concerns in this case are not supported by the science." Who gets to decide that? It appears to me you are putting your opinions, analysis and interpretation into the document and its conclusions in violation of WP:NOR. That's not what the document says, so there is no justification for the watered down term "mixed" because you disagree with their opinions and or conclusions. I would appreciate it if you would revert the content back to reflect what is actually said in the article: "contamination". Yours, David Tornheim (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
This article in the Guardian uses contamination to describe the unintended presence of experimental GMO wheat in fields, and a number of other reliable sources covering this news event use the term in a similar way.Dialectric (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
In terms of "who gets to decide" for the science? The scientists do. I don't know how to explain it better at this point as to why "contaminate" is so inappropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
^This is not helpful and is not a proper defense of the language, and as I said is nothing more that WP:OR. If there is not further objection and a proper justification for the language, I intend to put the correct word "contaminating" back in the sentence.David Tornheim (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

please don't be hasty. this is a discussion about language in the lead, looking only at the lead, which is a bad way to go. There is a section on escape with a subsection on co-existence. need to take some time to review that, look at the lead, and make sure they match. ditto we need to find the place in the body where anti-GMO folk are described as discussing concerns about admixture. will look at that this evening. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Creating a FAQ

When it comes to fringe topics, there's often a lot of lack of knowledge from well intentioned editors or just fluffery and puffery when someone comes in to the article with ideas on the topic already that might be at odds with the science. Other articles that get a lot of such traffic such as Talk:Evolution, Talk:Global warming, etc. have frequently asked question sections. I've seen some users complain about this topic that people don't see past conversations easily on this topic because they get archived (we can't keep everything up forever). Should we think about having a FAQ section as well on the talk page? If so, what main questions should be addressed that come up often? Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

good idea! i think a brief explanation of the scientific consensus statement - unpacking it a bit so each part is made clear (limited to currently marketed food; comparative to food from conventional organisms; and limited to health) - along with an explanation that scientific consensus is not the same as unanimity, and with a link to the RfC, would be helpful. My impression is that this statement is the thing that most folks get exercised over, and most times it is from not reacting to what it actually says. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I see a difference between a topic FAQ and an article FAQ. I see the latter as highly useful, if it's to document the conclusion(s) of past discussions. It makes them explicit and thus open to reconsideration. A suite of links to relevant WP policies that keep coming up would also be a win. Lfstevens (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I think an article FAQ would be the main focus. However, part of that would mean having some important topics within such as explanations of how the relevant science works. In that case, it would be similar to an evolution page explaining what a scientific theory actually is because there is often so much misunderstanding and people saying it's just a theory. That should all be wrapped into the idea of an article FAQ though rather than going too far into a topic FAQ as you say though. I'll see if I can pull something together in awhile to see if any other ideas come up in the meantime. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I made this back when the consensus statement was still being debated. Much of it is copied from the FAQs at other pages, but hopefully you could build on it. :-) Sunrise (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I might support a FAQ, if it were not as slanted as the article. Although I appreciate Sunrise's work, many of the statements in her proposed FAQ emphasize the GMO Proponents' position with little voice to the concerns of GMO critics. The purpose of the article, I believe, should be balanced and include the concerns of the critics on at least equal footing to the claims of the GMO Proponents. Just as is done with this article: Creation–evolution controversy. An excellent FAQ and way to handle the article in NPOV way might say this on the "scientific consensus" concern:
  • GMO Proponents claim there is a "broad scientific consensus" based on the Board of Directors official statements of two well respected organizations AAAS and AMA to that effect and numerous quotes from meta studies, the FAO and WHO and quotes from numerous other respected scientific organizations from around the globe in harmony with these statements.
  • GMO Critics dispute the claim there is a scientific consensus, saying that the positions of the AMA and AAAS are political, and that numerous scientist immediately objected to the Boards' statements, that the AMA position was created and used successfully as marketing to defeat the California labeling proposition under pressure from industry and influence from the President who had ties to industry. GMO Critics also say that the various quotes from numerous scientific organizations have been cherry-picked from individual authors who do not represent those organizations and that often the statements were rewritten in ways that are misleading, and leave out the other concerns that are in nearly all the documents that scientists are almost unanimous in their believe that GMO's have not be sufficiently studied and long term safety is still unknown.
I am aware I gave more space to the GMO Critics than the GMO Proponents. The amount of text for both should be equal. I just quickly wrote up what I know off the top of my head. David Tornheim (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, this is good. The relevant policy here is WP:NPOV, specifically the section called WP:UNDUE. Many people think NPOV means that we give some kind of "equal" voice to varying views on this, but that is not what NPOV is about. NPOV says that we read reliable sources (very important) and we summarize those sources, giving DUE WEIGHT as the sources do. Many of the questions about GMOs are science-based, and the scientific literature is what we examine to understand the topic and consider weight. Editors working here have done that, and the article reflects the weight of scientific sources. If you want to give more WEIGHT to the "GMO critic" view, you will need to show that their views have more weight in reliable sources. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there any ostensibly neutral scientific organization (in shorthand "Scientists United", not "Scientists against GMOs") that makes the claims that you attribute to GMO Critcs? If this is individuals (negative) v organizations (positive) it's a tough row to hoe unless some RS specifically provides evidence that the claimed consensus is false. For example, "Pew polled scientists and found no/only weak evidence of the claimed consensus. In fact..." or maybe "WaPo reported today that 5 of the 20 AAAS votes in favor of claiming a consensus had received funds from Monsanto. Further, leaked emails reveal..." Lfstevens (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That FAQ looks pretty awesome. I'd probably try to condense a few things with a few tweaks so the focus is also on what conversations have happened in the article itself, but it looks like you've done the heavy lifting already. I'll make a few tweaks this week sometime and see what folks think. It's grant proposal / progress reporting season here, so I may either get to it when I have a bit of spare time, or during a fit of work procrastination. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Bias / NPOV -- Non-Neutral Point of View

I am going to put my concerns about NPOV here from what I have said before. I hope we can discuss NPOV here rather than the other sections, such as alleged Canvassing. David Tornheim (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have specific issues with this article's actual content, please do raise them here on the Talk page; that is what it is for. Jytdog (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I think I will hold off on a more thorough analysis of some of the most major problems with NPOV while we discuss the "scientific consensus" issue, and "contamination" language (above), and FAQ, even though I have already prepared a draft on my issues with the "lede". I think there is plenty to discuss before I bring up that much more! Yours, David Tornheim (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"Scientific Consensus"

I intend to argue that the statement about a "scientific consensus" is slanted and not NPOV. I am aware of the RfC on the issue found here. Regardless of whatever was agreed on, I would like a concise explanation of why that statement is there and how it is supported by RS and why GMO critics concerns about the claim have not been given any voice whatsoever. David Tornheim (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Two things:
First, to change that statement, you will need to bring reliable sources introduced since the RfC was done, that show that new science has been done that changed the scientific consensus.
Second, would you please clarify what you are after when you ask for "a concise explanation of why that statement is there and how it is supported by RS and why GMO critics concerns about the claim have not been given any voice whatsoever." Are you asking for that here, or are you saying that the article itself should say that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Beyond the RfC, the statement has three solid citations that support it. Note that they are not individual researches making claims, but AAAS and the EU. Are there equivalent bodies that reject the idea of a consensus? Are you claiming that the fact of the consensus is not notable? Lfstevens (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The reason I ask as I have is despite much reading about WP:RS, and many years of casual Misplaced Pages editing, I still don't really understand the vicissitudes of what makes a source "reliable" or not in whatever context it is used. I have seen discussion and disagreement on what sources were chosen and whether they made the case or not, and I would appreciate a "state-of-the-art" explanation for why the 3 sources chosen are sufficient to justify the sentence that is there -and- why the well known objections by GMO critics to the "scientific consensus" claim are absent. I say "well known" because a simple Google search of "GMO consensus" brings up approximately an equal number of pages stating there IS vs. there IS NOT a "scientific consensus". I believe that *all* of the prominent GMO critics such as ENSSR have made statements that there is no such "scientific consensus". This report is a typical example of the exceptionally well argued reasons that no such "scientific consensus" exists. If this page is about the GMO food controversy, why are the voices of the critics absent on this very important claim, the one the FAQ discussion says is the most often asked about? I am completely dumbfounded by the absence of the GMO critics voice on this issue, which is the major reason I became interested in working on this page to address the NPOV problems that many others have observed too. David Tornheim (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Why do you consider Food & Water Watch to be a good enough source here? They might be a perfectly respectable non-profit, but how are we to conclude that this is an authoritative source? The report is unsigned; who was it written by? What are their qualifications? That's the challenge here. Guettarda (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Guettarda, that is an advocacy/activist group; not OK. We don't want to use sources for key statements from activist groups for any statement in WP's voice on key issues. They could be listed in the article as among the groups that oppose conventional ag including GM crops. David, please read WP:MEDRS - especially the section called "respect secondary sources" for a definition of the kind of sources that we are talking about as reliable on a controversial topic like this. (Note - ENSSR is also an activist group; they are somewhat like the US Union of Concerned Scientists) Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. Guettarda (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I urge both of you to actually read the sources that are linked-to in the body of the article (only a subset are used in the lead), if you have not already. There are a couple of lower quality sources in there meant to explain the scientific consensus to non-scientists Please deal with what this article actually says and cites. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I looked at ENSSR. They appear to be fairly fixated on GMOs and biotech safety. No other issues appear in their list of "recent activities".
Sep 10-11, 2014: Science in the Eye of the Storm (AStA TU Berlin, CRIIGEN, ENSSER, Federation of German Scientists, Stiftung Gekko, International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility, Universities Allied for Essential Medicine, Technical University, Berlin Germany)Statement "No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety"
Jun 26-27, 2013: Agroecology for Sustainable Food Systems in Europe: A Transformative Agenda (Centre for Agroecology and Food Security of the Coventry University, ENSSER, Free University of Brussels, Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, IFOAM EU, TP Organics; Brussels, Belgium)
May 28-29, 2013: Sustainable Diet and Food Security (Belgian Nutrition Society, The Nutrition Society (UK), Société Française de Nutrition; Lille, France)
Sep 28-29, 2012: Advancing the Understanding of Biosafety "GMO Risk Assessment, Independent Biosafety Research and Holistic Analysis" (ENSSER, Tara Foundation, TWN; Hyderabad)
Aug 31, 2012: The State of the GMO Planet (California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco)
May 16-18, 2012: Congress on Risks for Public Health & the Environment "Time for Convergence of European Technology Assessment and Risk Assessment" (ENSSER, EEA, HDO, UPM-ISTAS; Madrid)
March 2012: Angelika Hilbeck and Hartmut Meyer contribute to the debate on GM crops in the German weekly newspaper "Die Zeit"
March 24-25, 2011: "Sustainability and Holistic Assessment of Technologies and Biotechnologies" (University of Caen MRSH-CNRS; Risk Pole; CRIIGEN; ENSSER; Foundation for Citizen Sciences; GenØk; Society of Environmental Health in Western France; Caen)
October 09, 2010: Citizen Forum - Social Sustainability and Biological Safety (ENSSER, TWN & VDW; Nagoya)
October 07-09, 2010: Scientific Conference - Social Sustainability and Biological Safety "Advancing the Understanding of Biosafety" (ENSSER, TWN & VDW; Nagoya)
April 15-16, 2010: Symposium on Science & Society "Integrety of Science under Attack" (EEA & ENSSER; Copenhagen)
That said, I'd say the objections raised in the F&WW article are good points if valid. If a better source can be found for them, I'd say that the "consensus" claim could be reasonably challenged. That said, the "safety objections" appear to be "concerns" rather than "harms".
As I examine the ENSSR footnotes, this one looked like it might be appropriate relating to the "animal health" point, which is the only useful thing I saw that went beyond a "concern", although I could only see the abstract. The validity of the piece is further brought into question by this repeated citation;) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs)
scientists who are part of ENSSR have published - eg PMID 18989835. Scientific consensus has dissenters, for sure. That article rounds up every primary source that reported something bad and often (Seralini's 2007 paper is cited 6 times, for example), and ignores the many that have reported nothing, and contains quotes like "Member states should carefully scrutinize all applications, because companies try to hide information about the health impacts of GM." Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
one of the things i want to point out in all this - one of the pillars on which the scientific consensus rests (and you will learn this if you read the sources supporting the scientific consensus statement), is that there is no plausible mechanism by which food from GM plants could harm people. The Dona article lists the various theories that have been proposed, and none of them make such sense or have been verified to actually happen. This is one of the key things I remain curious about. If somebody publishes a paper that describes some plausible mechanism by which food from GM plants could hurt people, and that paper holds up, I am very sure the scientific consensus consensus would dissolve in that face of that. The other pillar is that no one has shown clear harm from GM food in a well-designed animal study. With all the passion and public interest around this issue, this remains the most surprising thing to me. Such studies are designable and do-able but what has been published to date has been roundly criticized as crappy science. I mentioned to David somewhere, that there is a project in Europe called the Grace Project, that has said they are actually re-doing the Seralini studies, but soundly this time, based on reports to date. I am looking forward to seeing what they publish, and hope it is actually rigorous science. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
When will the anti-GMO folks produce an unimpeachable study that supports their fears? Lfstevens (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both for your input, and thank you Jytdog for taking the time to read the FW&W article and to find the paper published by a scientist from ENSSR. I read the WP:MEDRS yesterday, but I will review it again. I am not certain yet certain it is the relevant WP:RS standard, and will explain later why. I was already familiar with the first two sources cited to the sentence even before I came to this GMO controversy page , because they are so heavily publicized by GMO Proponents, but am even more well versed in them now than ever before. I will comment ENSSR, FW&W and the other groups later.
"When will the anti-GMO folks produce an unimpeachable study that supports their fears?" That's easy to answer: That will happen concurrently with the announcement of the Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission: "Come on! You didn't really expect us to do our job, look into the safety issues at Fukushima and force TEPCO to make appropriate modifications, did you? Honesty, what were you thinking? Did your parents not instruct you: 'buyer beware'? That said, our scientists have studies proving that all future power plants will be 'safe'. You have nothing to fear."  :-) David Tornheim (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Talk about a strange comparison! The dangers of nuclear power are supremely well-documented. Although, despite the three big accidents, a lot fewer people have died from nuclear power than from conventional fuels. Just sayin' Lfstevens (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
^Answered on your talk page. David Tornheim (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Responded there. Lfstevens (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
As long-term participants in this discussion well know, there is copious evidence of scientific dissensus on this topic. Some evidence for this dissensus can be found on this page here. This latter page also explains in excruciating detail why the currently used sources are inadequate. (In short, because the doctrine of "substantial equivalence" they propound originates with politicians, not through scientific verification.)
For one well-credentialed example, check out this law review from biotechnology and law expert Katharine Van Tassel, who argues at length against the doctrine that genetically engineered foods currently on the market are as safe as conventionally grown food. "... the FDA can no longer claim that the donor product and the donee product are bioequivalent. Because they are not bioequivalent, the FDA will be hard pressed to continue in its position that common experience with the donor product can be used as proxy, or indirect, evidence that the donee product is equally safe." groupuscule (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"Networked gene" Reply

In response to groupuscule's comment just above, I checked out the piece. I found this important concept:

"The Central Dogma views genes as discrete packets of information arranged like beads strung on a thread of DNA2 and states that “each gene in living organisms, from humans to bacteria, carries the information needed to construct one protein.”

That claim has a cite. Then there's this:

"Directly contrary to the Central Dogma, in the past year numerous scientific discoveries involving the network effects of junk DNA, hybrid mRNA, SNPs and epigenetics have created a new model of a Networked Gene. Instead of viewing DNA as just a string of biological code, scientists have a new understanding that DNA is a highly complex operating system where a gene which expresses itself one way in a donor organism may not express itself the same way when dropped into an entirely different organism...."

That's the interesting bit, but is uncited. The food example is the allergenic GM peas. In that case, in its original organism the gene did not produce allergenic proteins, but did after insertion into the target organism. The article then talks about the "FDA's presumption" that GMOs are substantially equivalent (SE) and advocates eliminating the SE concept. This WP article by contrast cites claims that "Regulators check that GM foods are SE..." Thus it appears that groupuscule's author is incorrect. Lfstevens (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Flawed FDA Risk Assessments

Eat at Your Own Risk: Flawed FDA Risk Assessments Strengthen Arguments for Labeling GMOs, 25 February 2015, by Alex James, Truthout. -- IjonTichy (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Truthout isn't a reliable source. Is there a good source for this information to review? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
sorry for the capital letters, I don't have time to copyedit:
HOLES IN THE BIOTECH SAFETY NET - FDA Policy Does Not Assure the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods, Center for Science in the Public Interest
Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered food, Friends of the Earth and Salk Institute for Biological Studies
IjonTichy (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Categories: