Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Something like this seems like a balanced safety summary, as the lead to the "Health and safety" section, and in the article lead:

Currently available genetically modified foods have been assessed for safety by national regulatory agencies in several countries and are thus considered to be as safe to eat as conventional food.^[1][2] In addition, there is no evidence to date of harm caused by eating GM food.^[1][2] Nonetheless, there is significant public mistrust of GM food and the science supporting it.^[3][4]

It clearly states the official mainstream safety position, and indicates what it is based on. It also presents the sharply contrasting opinion of a significant segment of the public. The safety case is properly portrayed as being based on regulation, which determines the applicable science. It is fully international in scope. It also provides a natural lead-in to coverage of regulation, the science behind safety assessment, differences between countries, and public perception. It's easily verifiable in the cited sources, and there are other sources that can additionally or alternatively support the text. --Tsavage (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You're already aware this discussion is ongoing at the GM crops article. Continued attempts to remove the term scientific consensus at this point and exclude sources on it is a violation of NPOV and needs to stop.

talk

) 05:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You are well aware the "Scientific consensus" language has been disallowed, and no new sources have been introduced that would justify a redo, but without another RfC, King, you cannot overturn the ruling. And please stop bullying Tsavage.

I asked

Sarah SV

about the fact that you, Corn and Trypto have been reinserting the language against consensus, and she shared the following:

"The RfC closer...asked that people formulate alternative wording. So that's what needs to happen now...perhaps a subgroup of you could get together, one that represents opposing views, and propose a new RfC question to the larger group of regulars on those pages. Or maybe an RfC wouldn't be needed at that point."[1]

You may not use the scientific consensus language without sourcing, just as you cannot add material to any encyclopedic article without RS. As these articles are under DS, I cannot imagine why you feel so confident carrying on supporting the language. You do not have PAGs on your side. petrarchan47คุก 06:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Petrarchan, but "disallowed" never happened. The RfC was closed as no consensus, not that scientific consensus had to be removed. You're aware of that. At this point, scientific consensus is more than adequately sourced, but this isn't where that discussion is going on. As for your comments to SV (I saw them earlier), don't try to threaten editors for trying to use talk page discussion to enact edits and misrepresent the situation like that again. You should notice that "scientific consensus" is currently not edit warred into any articles at the moment.

talk

) 06:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"No consensus" is just that, no consensus. It basically means that the closer did not find the arguments for support or opposition to the question strong enough one way or the other to decide which one had consensus. For the "scientific consensus" to be "disallowed" they would have to find a consensus against the question in rfc. You also missed the first part of the response from Slim Virgin saying "Hi Petra, I don't know what to suggest because I don't know what is happening that is against consensus." We have been working on a restructuring of the contested sentence, Tsavage has a version above, maybe some other editors will also. This is all part of the editing process and not against any consensus, particularly a no consensus. We can then discuss them, hopefully at a single location or if necessary have a second (or is it third) RFC and maybe this time consensus can be reached. AIRcorn (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but what that RfC did clearly demonstrate is that there was no agreement on any of the sources supporting the consensus statement. The close was NC because, as the closer explained, the RfC, for some reason, was poorly formed, using text that didn't actually appear in the article, and that was changed part way through, and it didn't specify any action - there was nothing concrete to find consensus for or against as far as the literal non-question. That doesn't negate the exhaustive discussion of some 18 sources: if there had been one good source, it would have emerged, there were enough editors "for scientific consensus" to have rallied round it. There was really only the AAAS that kept getting returned to. And afterwards, there was agreement on rewording, as recommended. So I think the common sense outcome, parallel to the formal close, is that no adequate sources were found, and in Wikipedia, common sense is a virtue and a rule, as well.

Anyhow, a section that began about actual content is veering well off-topic. Should I start a new section? --Tsavage (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

^I agree with your description about what happened with that second RfC on the "scientific consensus" question. Jytdog basically launched it to reaffirm the language because editors kept questioning it, and the re-affirmation failed. The support for the language from the 1st RfC was no longer there, and with the exhaustive 2nd RfC editors really looked at the sources with a fine-tooth comb, which I do not think happened with the first RfC, except for the work of Groupuscule here. And so the closer suggested a revision in the language to try to gain consensus since there was no consensus to keep or to delete the language, nor was there a consensus on what to do about RS. So Kingofaces43 is mistaken saying that Tsavage has no right to challenge the "scientific consensus" language--that does not even make any sense. I agree with Petrarchan47 that this is little more than bullying. That said, I'm not sure why Tsavage raised the issue here. I think it should be consolidated. And I also I think it was a mistake to have a full fledged discussion at GM crops, but now that is where it is, so I think it should continue there. Now there are 3 talk pages where extensive discussions on this topic have taken place. I pity the newcomer who wants to know the history of that sentence... And I thought it was confusing when I first looked at the articles back in February 2015... --David Tornheim (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I posted this here because it is the logical place for it! :) The statement is specifically about consumption safety, and this is where the discussion about scientific consensus has been for the last year at least, and where the RfC was held.

I'm not sure why discussion specifically about safety for eating was started in Genetically modified crops (and then carried on simultaneously at NORN). Crop safety would seem to go beyond safety for human consumption, and particularly in the US, with its three-agency regulatory set-up, GM plant safety concerns such as environmental impact and pesticide emission are handled separately from the FDA, by the USDA/APHIS and the EPA, respectively, with some overlap.

A crop safety statement should be broader than only about eating GM food. Inserting the identical food safety sentence in what, a dozen GM articles, didn't really make sense. The discussion may broaden at crops, while my proposed content is specifically about consumption safety, so I posted it here. Discussing food safety in the food article makes sense to me. --Tsavage (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Strong argument. I will support your attempts to move venue here where it belongs. I will note that the discussion originally took place at Genetically modified food controversies which is arguably even more appropriate than here. I will support your attempts to move to the best venue--probably here, since it was where the 2nd RfC took place and for the reasons you stated. Please feel free to ping me when you are talking about this venue issue. I might not notice it in the walls-of-text rehashing the thorough discussion of many of these same sources in the 2nd RfC. (The reason for discussion at GM crops is because of the flare up starting here on 1/23/2016 when Aircorn reverted my edit and suggested another RfC on the language. Before that the sentence was stable in a number of articles. All the recent discussion originated there.) --David Tornheim (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@

Kingofaces43

:: On the contrary, sourcing issues aside, prominently inserting a scientific consensus statement gives undue weight to only one aspect of the topic, whereas for currently available GM food, safety is first a regulatory assessment issue. GM foods aren't considered safe for consumer use because of a general agreement in the scientific community, safety is determined case-by-case by meeting regulatory criteria that were set out in the late 20th century, before most of the reports, studies, and statements we're discussing even existed.

Certainly, safety research is one important aspect of GM food coverage, but it is not the main focus when it comes to the safety of currently available GM food, the science there concerns substantial equivalence. Ongoing general safety research is part of the public and policy debates, which is the context we should be covering it in. --Tsavage (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we should begin with what the review studies say, which is that no evidence has been found that currently available GMO products are harmful. National regulatory agencies have approved these products as safe, although some scientists have said that testing has been insufficient.

Then we should clarify some of the issues. The US govt used the concept of

GRAS

, while Europe did not. The studies looked at the foods themselves, rather than fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, etc. used - their safety has been assessed separately. Also point out the oils and sugars etc. derived from GMO are indistinguishable from non-GMO and contain no DNA. And dietary guidelines still apply. (For example, since exceeding calory requires with non-GMO food is cautioned against, the same would apply to GMO food.)

I have not seen anything about why a case by case study is required - we need a source or that. My understanding is that produce that is currently unsafe (such as poison berries) would likely continue to be unsafe in a GMO form, while conceivably the DNA of a safe plant could be modified to make it unsafe.

TFD (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have four points to make:

1. It's becoming difficult to have these discussions going on simultaneously at so many different places, and I think it would be helpful to centralize this at the existing discussions at Talk:Genetically modified crops.
2. The case-by-case language is verbatim from a source from the WHO.
3. I was not pinged about the assertion that I am one of the editors supposedly editing against consensus, but the assertion is unfounded. The 2015 RfC was closed as "no consensus" because there was no consensus. That is not the same thing as no consensus for including sources that are on one "side" of a POV dispute.
4. It's becoming difficult to have these discussions going on simultaneously at so many different places, and I think it would be helpful to centralize this at the existing discussions at Talk:Genetically modified crops.

• --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This section is about content for this article, and the paragraph does not have to do with a summary of ongoing food safety research or any agreement thereof. What would you like to centralize at GM crops, discussion of whether or not there is sourcing to support using the word consensus in a food safety statement? --Tsavage (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, all of this is about what Wikipedia should say about whether or not GM crops and foods are safe. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Per policy, Wikipedia should say what reliable sources say, in easily verifiable language, avoiding original interpretation, which includes synthesis of multiple sources to arrive at an original conclusion. It's pretty straightforward.

As for the scientific consensus/agreement statement, that's been disputed for the past 3-1/2 years. We shouldn't have a single sentence consuming so much time and energy, and causing such disruption, when what is being argued over is not inclusion or exclusion of information, but only the choice of which words to use in a summary sentence. The last RfC, argued for nearly two months and closed only six months ago, involved over 30 editors reviewing some 18 sources, and they did not come close to agreement on sourcing for "scientific consensus" wording. And yet, editors continue to pursue that one specific wording, which seems to draw everyone who wishes to edit around the GM topic into dispute, or warns them away.

Read the

Global warming

lead, it clearly and unequivocally presents two different, strong scientific agreements in the first six sentences, without using the "consensus" word, and imo communicates much better, more informatively and neutrally, without it.

I would like to get back to normal incremental editing, and improve articles like this one that is way substandard, and not have a perennial dispute over a single optional phrase sucking up all of the oxygen. I'd like to post proposed content for an article on that article's Talk page. Simple, straightforward, common sense. This is supposed to be what Wikipedia is about. --Tsavage (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

100% agree with Tsavage (talk · contribs); the proposed wording at the top of this section looks fine by me. People who are getting hung up over the word consensus should just relax. II | (t - c) 05:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed newly added "Economy" section, which was copied from Genetically modified food controversies with the edit summary: copy from Controversies article, seems more relevant here. At the same time, the same content was also copied to Genetically modified crops, making it duplicated content in two articles.

• The section is entirely off-topic, it is about GM crops' economic value to farmers, and opposition to the EU's restriction on GM technology.
• The same content is currently under discussion at GM crops, under a POV tag concerning a one-sided view of economic advantages.

There is no obvious reason for this bold addition. I've seen no discussion here about the need for information on the economic benefits of GM for farmers in this article. --Tsavage (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

^I agree with this decision as I also indicated on the Genetically modified crops talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Responded there. Tsavage, just a note that your edit summary here and your comment at the Crops talk page (but not your comment here) are mistaken about what edits I made, e.g. the content that I copied has (AFAIK) never been under discussion as POV. Sunrise (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sunrise: Thanks. I replied at GM crops! --Tsavage (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A fresh discussion has started with a proposal for revision to this sentence:

There is general scientific agreement that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis. [citations omitted]

to:

There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.[citations omitted]

The discussion is taking place here at at the talk page of Genetically modified crops. Please comment there. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dialectric: Regarding [2]. Does this help? --David Tornheim (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

We should also mention that the U.S. has tariffs for sugar imports and subsidies for sugar beets and as a result sugar is more expensive than Canada, which mostly imports sugar, although it too has government subsidized GMO beet sugar. TFD (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

GM Beets are a significant enough crop that there could be a stand alone article about them, as there is for a number of other crops linked in Template:Genetic engineering. A standalone article would be a good place to cover their place in the broader sugar market and regulation. David, your source includes the statement ' It was concluded that glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet H7-1 is equivalent to other commercially available sugar beet varieties with respect to composition and nutritional quality.' but it does not link these conclusions to any specific study or commercial harvest as the text I removed did. It otherwise appears to be a good source for beet information and some content could likely be drawn from it to add to the article. Dialectric (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said above, including creating a separtae article for GM Sugar Beets. My understanding is that they make up 90-95% of all sugar beet production in the U.S. per USDA [3], and I believe that approximately 55% of sugar comes from sugar beets (Ibid.), so that close to 50% of American sugar is GM sugar (yes, that conclusion is

WP:SYN). And yes, I know the source doesn't cite a specific study. I just thought it might be helpful in fleshing out something relevant using RS to whatever it was that the editor thought they had read. I am not that familiar with the database I cited from and if it is RS or not. My guess is that it probably is. --David Tornheim (talk

) 21:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

FAQ Test: Basic questions this article should easily answer

Our goal is to write comprehensive, unbiased articles, in plain English, intended for general readers of all ages. With this broad target in mind, we can propose the most basic questions likely to be asked for this subject, and then, see if the article answers them, and how easily. Evaluation is based on simple usability testing which anyone can perform: pick a question, go to the article, and see how quickly you can find the answer, noting what steps you took. Questions rely on our common sense, and are also based on GM food FAQs from various sources.

NOTE: The questions are not intended to be literally included in the article, they are only for evaluating the article—don't be concerned with precise wording, unless a question is not clear to you. --Tsavage (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• What are genetically modified foods? Easy to access a most basic explanation that is still enough to then look further.

• Minimum Pass: The first sentence and first paragraph give me a general idea, about same as a dictionary def of "genetically modified." Jumped to "Definition" section, which essentially repeats the lead. Checked "Process," which adds a little in a somewhat vague way: lab to field test. Overall, easy to get the most basic framing. --Tsavage (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• How are GMF different from trad foods?

• Fail: Not answered. On full reading, there is some stuff like "no DNA or protein" for some foods after processing, which hints at an answer, and "Definition" explains the difference in methods - GE vs trad crossbreeding - but no clear comparison. This question is similar to "what are GMF" answering this version can go a long way to giving the reader context for how testing works and how safety is evaluated, including substantial equivalence, then regulation, and on from there. We should have a concise, well-summarized, non-technical comparison of raw and processed GMF vs non-GMF. This seems to be a core question for this article. --Tsavage (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• What is the history of GM foods? Easy to find out how GM fits with other methods, and when the firsts happened, like first GM crop on the market.

• Minimum Pass: The lead easily tells me the first commercial approved GMF was a tomato in 1994. Jumped to "History" which is not clearly written, and for some reason starts with Sumerians and Bablyonians, but in there, I get some more dates. Overall, a basic, sketchy idea of when and where (US) it all got started. , which (after a full rewrite) gives me a basic timeline of how GM fits with other methods, and notes all the firsts. --Tsavage (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason is likely an intentional effort to frame GM foods as part of a long history rather than a recent development. I don't think this framing is helpful. I would suggest at most one sentence to situate GM foods in a larger history of food technology, with the unrelated content placed in that related article. As it is, it is akin to writing the history of the crossbow starting with a paragraph on precursor weapons going back to the stone age.Dialectric (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems likely. Once you start looking at the article simply as a reader (which I kinda always do anyway), there's lots of stuff like that. Like it seems the only reason for all of that detail about corn starch, sugar, lecithin, with molecular diagrams, is to get in that there is "vanishingly small" to none of DNA material in the final products - lecithin?!?! This usability testing approach tends to show up holes and imbalances in a non-adversarial way, it's just like, Huh, what's this about, what's this doing here?! --Tsavage (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Are GM foods safe?

• Fail: Upfront in the lead, I see that science doesn't find anything more to worry about than with non-GM food, but I can't find any background or detail on how that's arrived at. No section about health or risk or safety. I look under Testing and Regulation: nothing. In Controversies, there's the scientific agreement statement again, mention of testing for allergens and toxins, some opposing views, but no explanation of how safety is determined. (A reasonable explanation would begin with substantial equivalence, which doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the article.) --Tsavage (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Need to retest with new "Health and safety" section. --Tsavage (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• What GM foods are available? How widespread are they?

• Fail: From lead, vague idea that GM is mainly ingredient crops, like soy and corn, then jump to "Crops">"Fruits and vegetables" and halfway through first para, on papaya, I stop reading and scroll down, and down, and realize no easy answer is forthcoming. There are paragraphs on different crops, with different amounts of information, seems kinda randomly pieced together, it doesn't say whether this is a complete set of available crops, or which countries they are available in. After reading and skimming, I have no clue what the overall availability situation is for specific GM foods. A table, like at Genetically_modified_crops#Crops), would be more helpful. --Tsavage (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would improve on 'what GM foods are available now' with 'what gm foods have been available since the technology appeared', possibly a timeline/graph showing introductions and discontinuations. I would also like to see clearer economics information - what is the market breakdown for current past crops in dollars and percentages of total volume. Dialectric (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The table format as in "GM crops" could handle all that. Some people don't like tables for various reasons, but in this case, it has distinct presentation and editing advantages, it makes it easy to see what's going on. Sorting by certain columns would be useful, like crop name, and year introduced. --Tsavage (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

See the History q above. And does WP have a timeline widget? It would sure come in handy. Lfstevens (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

WP has the somewhat deceptively-named Wikipedia:EasyTimeline and Category:Timeline templates. I haven't run across any specific tool/widget that makes timelines using a GUI. Wikiproject Music has done extensive work with easyTimeline, as demonstrated here. Dialectric (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• How are GM foods regulated?

• Fail: Nothing in lead, except vague mention of regulation issues, jumped to "Regulation section," which only really mentions "marked differences between US and Europe" without detail, then gives a superficial description of multiple responsible agencies in the US. Checked "Controversies," which brings up issues but doesn't tie them to regulation. Labeling and ban map interesting but provided no explanation, and not covered in text. So there is some (US) regulatory info, and a bit of a world context (map, "Labeling" subsection), but what is easily found raises more questions than it answers (US vs Europe?...and what about rest of world?). Needs a proper summary section. --Tsavage (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Big subject, because you can't stop with the US.

Yes, big, and kinda critical to understanding the entire safety issue (not to mention scientific debate, economic issues, etc). Maybe draft a high level intro paragraph, written for comprehensive, concise readability (ideally, by someone who already has a good overview), then work backward to sourcing and balance, rather than building up piecemeal (ie, writing up US, EU, other countries, individually, then summarizing). --Tsavage (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• What new developments can we expect for GM foods: what's next, where is GM food headed?

• Fail: Essentially nothing that's easily found or well-explained. I've heard about golden rice, what about more nutritious GM food? Anything that consumers are gonna actually notice? What about fish and meat, a salmon was just approved, is there more on the way? Aren't they gonna produce drugs in plants, that's not exactly food, but close (noticed some stuff on that buried under "Recombinant food-grade organisms for healthcare" in "Other uses" - there's info, but a bit of a listy barrage, could be better written). With the speed of technological development, it seems odd to have a general article about what is the meeting of food and high tech, and have no mention of the future, not even whatever is the next big thing. --Tsavage (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• 'What new developments can we expect' is something of a crystal ball issue and I would not include it in an initial list of key coverage. Like pharmaceuticals, GMOs have many products in the testing pipeline, and many of these will receive RS coverage then never make it to market. Dialectric (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's a natural question, but not one we might look to an encyclopedia to answer, except I found it on a WHO FAQ, so there is a sourced answer. --Tsavage (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Leave this out. Speculative. Lfstevens (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we won't be able to cover it in an encyclopedic way, but that won't stop readers from asking the question. Some broad answers, like more herbicide- and pest-resistance, drought tolerance, nutrition-enhanced, fish, animals, other forms of GM than current GE methods, may be able to be sourced and appropriately coverd. --Tsavage (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, my question is when are they going to cure cancer? Doesn't mean that WP should be offering speculation about it. Your comment refutes itself "we won't be able to cover it in an encyclopedic way". Exactly. Lfstevens (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hahahaha, argumentative AND paranoid? :) The operative word was "we": WP editors argue, "what's next" is a no-brainer in a conventional editorial set-up, if the editor approves, hit Publish. And I said "maybe we won't" - dare to dream! Asking "what's next" is practically a human instinct, if we don't think we can handle it, then it can eventually be struck as,"Not possible to answer in this editing environment"...it's still a valid question. Meanwhile, a) as noted, the WHO for one has a concise, non-controversial reply, b) we do "speculate" all the time here at WP - look no further than GM food's favorite comparison article, third para of

Global warming: "Future climate change and associated impacts will differ from region to region around the globe.[15][16] Anticipated effects include..." For my part, I'm just putting up general reader FAQs to see if/how this article handles them. --Tsavage (talk

) 23:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• I suppose you could present this in as what is currently being researched. Most plants have a protocol that allows them to be genetically engineered and scientists are always trying different genes for research purposes if nothing else. The trouble is that most of this stuff will never become reality or are a very long way off being developed commercially. I see Dialectric has already basically said that. If this is done it might be best to confine it to products that are awaiting regulation. AIRcorn (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Products awaiting regulation would be a reasonable place to start.Dialectric (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Are GM foods labeled? A basic answer is easily found - some places yes, some places no - by going to the "Labeling" section (and checking the first citation if you want to know exactly which countries have labeling).

• Pass:: I see labeling in the lead on a list of public issues. Jump to the conveniently titled "Labeling" section, which is invitingly concise and gives me the basic answer to my question. Doesn't list the 64 countries with mandatory labeling, though, so I check the citation and quickly find a list at the bottom. Back at Wikipedia, I notice the labeling map, there's a better version on the site I just checked (it names the countries, but doesn't seem to enlarge so I couldn't actually read 'em). The extra info about minimum percentage is interesting - so nothing is really necessarily GMO-free? Anyhow, besides the US and Canada reason for not labeling, I don't know why some countries do have labels, or what the public issues are, but those are other questions, I quite easily found a basic answer to mine. --Tsavage (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Part of regulation. Lfstevens (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Is GM food available everywhere, around the world?

• Fail: Nothing in the lead. Scanned ToC and jumped to "Regulation" as most likely. There's mention of governments, and US vs European countries, but then it's all about the US. There's a world map with countries that require GMO labeling colored but not identified. In "Labeling" subsection, it says 64 countries require labeling, and there's also a mention of Canada. Jumped to "Crops" and skimmed to see if availability in various countries, but no. So what I leaarned is, there's a bunch of countries that require labeling, and the US and European counties regulate differently - beyond that, no clue how GM food is spread around the world. --Tsavage (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure what you mean by this. AIRcorn (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Rephrased the question (was "Is GM food the same around the world?'"). --Tsavage (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Do GM foods affect the environment?

• Fail: Couldn't find anything at all. In the lead, there's a mention of "environmental impact" in a list of issues. Nothing in the ToC seemed to follow up on this. Checked "Health and safety" - nothing. "Regulation" mentions that in the US, the EPA is there to "ensure environmental safety." "Controversies" repeats the lead, saying "harm the environment" is an issue, with no explanation. As a reader and regular consumer of food, I sometimes consider the larger impact of certain food purchases, and with all the uproar over GM food, wondering if there is an environmental concern is pretty basic, and totally not answered. --Tsavage (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• How about "How do GM foods affect the environment differently from trad foods?"

This is one area where having the separate GM crops article leads to confusion rather than clarity. The foods themselves are unlikely to have significant environmental impact but the plants that produce the foods, ie the GM crops, certainly have measurable environmental effects, particularly when pesticide use is taken into account.Dialectric (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Why do we have GM foods: why were they developed, what are the benefits?

• Fail: Nothing, really, hints, maybe. The lead says GM has focused on cash crops like corn and soy that are in "high demand by farmers" but no explanation why, and a mention of "better nutrient profiles." No obvious place to jump in ToC. Checking "Fruits and vegetables," the first bit is about papaya and how GM saved the Hawaiian papaya industry from some virus. Skimming the rest, I can guess that GM is good for farmers, but how, exactly, I can't find. And what advantage does it bring to consumers? "Better nutrient profiles" - mention in the lead is not followed up on? There's some stuff in a section with "healthcare" in the title, about medical uses, but that seems to be in the future. All in all, no answer to, Why GM food? --Tsavage (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• What is the intent of this question? Don't we have them because supply met demand, like any other products? Lfstevens (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

GM food benefits, and particularly for consumers, haven't been promoted to the general public, so I think it's pretty natural that people wonder what purpose they serve, what benefits they deliver. The question is in Monsanto and FDA FAQs, as two examples. --Tsavage (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

General comments

That's a starter list - there are more questions, meanwhile, a point should be reached naturally where the basics have all been answered. If the article fails to provide easily accessible answers to basic questions, then we can assume that the article is significantly imbalanced and of poor quality. --Tsavage (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Dialectric: I hope you don't mind, I refactored your comment, splitting it and placing it under the relevant sections. --Tsavage (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I like this idea and think it is a great way to develop the article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have had a chance to review most of this article. I agree with you that it is missing a lot of information. For example, it does not mention bans at all. Before I thought the controversy should all be consolidated in one section, but now I see the problem is that this article makes it seem like there is virtually no controversy over GM food at all, which we all know is not true. So I agree with you that controversy should be included in relevant areas. It looks to me that that a substantial portion of this article was written or edited by scientists who work in the biotech field, which would explain why there is no controversy included. It has the effect of promoting the technology. But of course Wikipedia's goal is not to promote new technology but to report what is in the RS, and a substantial amount of that is missing from the article. I may support some merging of information from the controversy article here, although from looking at the controversy article, I think there is too much information over there to bring all of it to this article. That could have the effect of overemphasizing the controversy. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• I thought I would try and answer some of Tsavages questions with a table. It grew a bit large so now resides at List of genetically modified crops. Maybe some parts could be moved here that are relevant. AIRcorn (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

With this edit, Dialectric removed 3 diagrams under the grounds that it is "too detailed". Although I can see the possible concern that it is highly technical--so is the text. It doesn't seem that bad to be honest. Also, we need images in our articles for visual learners and to break up lengthy narratives, and we often have too few IMHO. So, if you can suggest alternative images for this section that are better, I might support such alternatives. I will say that from my own experience on Wikipedia, getting in good images is a huge pain because of copyright issues, EVEN if you own the copyright and want to turn the image over under the GNU license to the public. In one case, I spent quite a bit of time and just gave up, even though I thought an image would really add a lot. So for those who have taken the time to get an image in, I have much respect. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Molecular diagrams in non-chemistry articles obfuscate rather than elucidate for most readers. If they provide benefit to the subset of readers with both a chemistry background and an inclination to visual learning, they may also confuse readers without a chemistry background and lead them to assume that the subject is more complex than it is. An understanding of the chemistry of food/sugar refining is not necessary to a general conceptual understanding of the refining process, and definitely not necessary to an understanding of the issues surrounding GM foods; readers interested in the chemical makeup of, say, soy derivatives would be better served by having that information in the article on a specific derivative rather than a general article on GM food. While more images could benefit the article, keeping obfuscating images is not in the interest of readers. Finally, I have concerns about the images used as they imply that the output products are molecularly pure ('lab grade') which may be original research.Dialectric (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I looked carefully at the images while keeping Dialectric's specific concerns in mind. I end up supporting keeping the images. They are simply chemical structures, and are encyclopedic. The captions contain links to the pages about each chemical, for readers who want more explanation. And when I read the accompanying text, I don't think that there is any danger that readers are misled about the purity. I'm just not seeing a problem with them, and I consider them a net positive. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not see the purpose of these diagrams in this article. Molecular diagrams are far, far from common currency when it comes to general illustration, they are inherently technical in nature, and should only be used when there is a clear purpose. I see no purpose whatsoever in this context, they only serve to confuse.

The question is, what purpose do they serve in explaining GM food? What is being furthered by presenting, for example, molecular diagrams for the molecules that make up starch, that a simple link to the starch article wouldn't better satisfy, more directly, with less distraction? What additional information about GM food do they provide the general reader? And what is their particular relevance to starch made from GM ingredients, as opposed to non-GMO-derived starch?

A quick relevance test is to expand the captions in order to tie them into the genetically modified food topic. This can't be done from the existing text, there is no reason for them to be there.

Inserting overly technical and largely irrelevant material runs counter to creating straightforward, neutral content, presented in non-technical terms, and throws up a barrier to comprehension. Imo, molecular diagrams in this case do exactly that. --Tsavage (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can see that editors are going to disagree about this. Would it perhaps be useful to use, instead, images of starch and sugar (particularly if we can find images of them that were derived from GM crops)? I'm talking about images approximately along the lines of File:Cornstarch mixed with water.jpg and File:Raw cane sugar light.JPG, although we might need instead to find ones that we are sure are GM-derived. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would we want to include any images that don't provide significant explanation of the subject? The entire Derivative products section should be edited down to a paragraph that says that much of/the majority of current GM food is processed, commonly including sugar, starches, vegetable oil, etc, where most or all of the genetic material and protein is removed or all but undetectable. That's the point, so why don't we spare the reader a few hundred unnecessary words and get right to it?

Right now, we have a subsection, Corn starch and starch sugars, including syrups, that makes zero mention of GM food; the rest of the Derivative section is uneven, also overly detailed about non-GM concerns, and poorly sourced. Let's fix it rather than argue over extraneous molecular diagrams. --Tsavage (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree the entire "Derivatives" section should be one paragraph, and have removed the irrelevant images per

WP:IUP. There is no need to discuss whether we want to stick with policy or not, this isn't something up for debate. petrarchan47คุก

06:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Tsavage makes some pretty strong arguments for reducing the derivatives section that I agree with. Any of the sentences that directly mention GM can arguably be left in, such as a good portion of the section on sugar. But the rest of the material that is just general information about derivatives without a clear connection to GM should probably be reduced down substantially. (I do like the simplicity of the writing and would like to make sure it is easy to find elsewhere when it is deleted.) With that said, if the section is reduced, the images can go too. Perhaps my main concern with the removal was just to avoid too much uninterrupted text. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I really don't care about the images, and I think that condensing that section is a good idea. Fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160107082440/http://www.cottonseed.com/publications/facts.asp to http://www.cottonseed.com/publications/facts.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151222141628/http://www.heinonline.org.mutex.gmu.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/dragl19&div=6&start_page=39&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults to http://www.heinonline.org.mutex.gmu.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/dragl19&div=6&start_page=39&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

:Online 02:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see:

) 23:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Citation format for Government Orgs

Per this discussion, I am made the following change. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that the discussion that you cite about the template adjustment drew another comment after you made this change, in which another editor objects to switching the "publisher" and "author" fields. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety language based on the five proposals at GM crops here. This RfC will affect the current language in paragraph 3 of this article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} and Laser brain (talk) have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a notice that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms is open for public comment. AIRcorn (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genetically modified food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140120113716/http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/policy/GMFood.pdf to http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/policy/GMFood.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

:Online 08:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

We have the same problem in this article as I mentioned here: Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#citation_redundancy --David Tornheim (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Genetically modified food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016100707/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file15655.pdf to http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file15655.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that some citations in the RfC language in the lead are repeated, redundantly, in the "Health and safety" section – in other words, the same citations appear twice in the reference list. I don't have the stomach to fix it, but I hope that someone else will. --Tryptofish (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

In the introduction of the article it mentions that there is controversy over the fact that certain GMO products have been subject to intellectual property. That is really interesting and the source for it is a really good source however there is no mention of GMOs as intellectual property anywhere else in the article and that can be elaborated on. The article could also elaborate on the environmental impacts of GMOs. Every fact is referenced with a citation throughout the article. The links to the references work. Otherwise the article has a lot of sources, everything is relevant to the article and it is neutral.— Atate27 (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw that and also expected there to be an elaboration in the article. If nothing else, it seemed reasonable to link that sentence to the more specific "plant breeder rights" article than the general "intellectual property" article, although that article could use some expansion. So little attention is given to plant patents in popular culture apart from genetically engineered plans that I don't think most people realize that practically every item of produce in the grocery store is patented or off an expired patent. Mfedder (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

About [4] and a corresponding edit at Genetically modified crops, even though the editor has been blocked, it actually is the case that the language has been around for some time at Genetically modified organism. I think that it would be OK to leave these edits as is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Have to disagree and have reverted the edit - which was copied from another article. The studies reviewed were preliminary (in rats) and non-specific to GMO consumer foods. --Zefr (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

If I remember right (just heading out the door), the original edit came up just after the GMO RfC when there were other kerfuffles going on that more or less shut down editing. It ended up being a hold over in genetically modified organism since then. It's is fairly contradictory with the GMO RfC finding in terms of weight so that's mostly why it was removed.

talk

) 21:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Cathry added it in July 2016.[5] The RFC had just closed a couple of weeks earlier. Maybe it was missed. Maybe editors were over arguing. Either way it has a weak consensus at that article. Personally I feel it is undue, but I also think we can afford to wait a further two weeks until Cathry comes back. AIRcorn (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It's fine with me to leave it reverted, as I don't feel strongly either way. I just figured it was the right thing for me to do, to point it out in case anyone was going to revert it without being aware. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Given that there seems to be a consensus here, I've removed it from the other two pages as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Genetically modified food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150107073644/http://www.hawaiipapaya.com/rainbow.htm to http://www.hawaiipapaya.com/rainbow.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150109042604/http://etd.uovs.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-10042011-094627/unrestricted/MarxGM.pdf to http://etd.uovs.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-10042011-094627/unrestricted/MarxGM.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060605232122/http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/farming_world_soybean_consumption/index.html to http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/farming_world_soybean_consumption/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150326181805/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/enzymes/83.chymosin.html to http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/enzymes/83.chymosin.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326015714/http://ideaireland.org/library/idea-position-on-genetically-modified-foods/ to http://ideaireland.org/library/idea-position-on-genetically-modified-foods/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Question, what specific international organizations have disputed the use of genetic modification on food?Amhonigman (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I am going to work through these articles over the next few months in an attempt to improve them. The two are closely related so I will probably work on them simultaneously. My thinking at the moment is to treat the crop one as more focused on the production side and the food one more on the product. The crop one should focus more on the environmental aspects while this one will be more on health. There will unfortunately be some overlap and repetition between the two articles, but this is unavoidable. I also see some problems when it comes to the controversy sections, but will deal with that when I get to it. Any thoughts or advice will be appreciated. AIRcorn (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "Health and Safety" section is repeated word for word in the lead. Is this intentional?

) 19:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is language from the

talk

) 22:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It needs more information on those because people need to understand how allergens relate to the proteins in the food they are modifying.SweetPo65 (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It needs to add more information on BGH and what it may be linked to. SweetPo65 (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There needs to be information of Non-Gmo Project verified testing on GMO foods.SweetPo65 (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I see you are a student editor, but that does not excuse directly copy-pasting from a source as you did in relation to this. KoA (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I put in my own words this time so I wouldn't violate any copyrights, I hope this is good this time!SweetPo65 (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

There needed to be more about the efforts being made to motion for mandatory labeling. I hope this edit is worthy to stay up. SweetPo65 (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

There needs to be a list of food requirements so readers know what is required already on U.S. food. I was not sure if how I wrote this was considered copyrighting. Do not want to make that mistake again. Let me know if this needs to be reworded. SweetPo65 (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kamari7, Ajanae.evans.

Above undated message substituted from

) 22:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from

) 21:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)