Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

FDA's new definition of GMO

From the NYT: petrarchan47คุก 18:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"But if anything, the F.D.A. further complicated the issue by distinguishing the term “genetic engineering” from “genetic modification.”

"F.D.A. considers the term ‘genetic modification’ to be a much broader term that encompasses other means of altering the genome of an organism including selective breeding, and lab-based in vitro methods,” the agency said in its announcement.

"...given the agency’s definition of genetic modification, non-G.M.O labeling on thousands of products now in stores would technically be false because they contain plants genetically modified over centuries through hybridization and other conventional breeding techniques. For instance, under the F.D.A.’s definition, a corn chip made from conventional corn is genetically modified, but not genetically engineered — an argument that the biotech industry has been making for years.

“They’re conflating what is a very new and novel technology with traditional types of breeding, which is simply crossing different varieties of, say, corn,” said Andrew Kimbrell, founder and executive director of the Center for Food Safety, which is lobbying for mandatory labeling. “It’s kind of like saying an abacus is very much like a computer.”

Related (controversy around labelling and the FDA's position):

From the New England Journal of Medicine (August 2015): petrarchan47คุก 02:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• The application of genetic engineering to agriculture builds on the ancient practice of selective breeding. But unlike traditional selective breeding, genetic engineering vastly expands the range of traits that can be moved into plants and enables breeders to import DNA from virtually anywhere in the biosphere.
• The National Academy of Sciences has twice reviewed the safety of GM crops — in 2000 and 2004. Those reviews, which focused almost entirely on the genetic aspects of biotechnology, concluded that GM crops pose no unique hazards to human health. They noted that genetic transformation has the potential to produce unanticipated allergens or toxins and might alter the nutritional quality of food. Both reports recommended development of new risk-assessment tools and postmarketing surveillance. Those recommendations have largely gone unheeded.
• [New] developments suggest that GM foods and the herbicides applied to them may pose hazards to human health that were not examined in previous assessments. We believe that the time has therefore come to thoroughly reconsider all aspects of the safety of plant biotechnology.
• [W]e believe the time has come to revisit the United States' reluctance to label GM foods. Labeling will deliver multiple benefits. It is essential for tracking emergence of novel food allergies and assessing effects of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops. It would respect the wishes of a growing number of consumers who insist they have a right to know what foods they are buying and how they were produced. And the argument that there is nothing new about genetic rearrangement misses the point that GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer. We hope, in light of this new information, that the FDA will reconsider labeling of GM foods and couple it with adequately funded, long-term postmarketing surveillance.

ArbCom case closed

Please note that the ArbCom case on GMO's has recently closed. The final decision is here (summary is here). This article is under a 1RR restriction and Discretionary Sanctions. Edit with appropriate caution. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks David. In many ways, this article is where much of the controversy started, that wound up up at ArbCom. It didn't need to be taken there, as I commented at the time right here. So here we are. I suggest that those wishing to edit here review the archives from the last six months or so. It's a lot of reading, but will give perspective on what happened. And David, thanks again for the cautionary post, and indeed, for your work. Jusdafax 23:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Issues vs controversies

General comment: There is the larger issue of what is in this article, compared to what is in the Controversies article, and what, in fact, should be defined as a "controversy," as opposed to simply an issue. This was one of the arguments that ran through the months of debate that lead up to the arbcom case, and it has not been resolved.

"Controversies" can't be used as a catchall, a convenient spot for troublesome items to be tucked away. The GMO food topic overall is not a stable or settled one in the world today, but neither is it one big controversy, within it, there are issues and then there are controversies comprising sides and events that can be documented as such. Sorting this out, taking a hard look at what has already been separated into the Controversies article, to see what may not belong there and what may be missing here, as far as topics, sections, and specific content, is really a first serious step to article improvement. --Tsavage (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding GM food and GM in general is large enough to justify a stand alone article by itself. It is the place to discuss all the little studies and get in depth into the science and politics behind GM. It is still also a subtopic of this article. There is probably scope to expand the controversy section here. The environmental aspects are woefully under-represented and from a science perspective much more supported. Almost all the problematic arguments tend to focus on the health aspects. AIRcorn (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring in part to reasoned discussions and RfCs on this page, about sections like "Public perception" and "Health effects" that would seem natural sections here, and concern over cramming a number of issues into a "Controversies" section here, and then referring things off to the Controversies article. Piecemeal editing without an overall framework is not the most efficient way to edit; it may be difficult or next to impossible to achieve more planned article development, but it still merits mention. What I didn't say or imply was that we don't need a GM food controversy article, rather, that it should contain actual controversies, not simply issues. --Tsavage (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually think we are agreeing in general about the structure of these articles. AIRcorn (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

More specficially to this discussion, with the (imo) catchall Controversies section we have now, it's difficult to evaluate what is being presented. Considering items in the context of logical sections like "Regulation," "Public perception," "Health and safety," or whatever exactly, things make more sense. I will go back and look at the archived recent discussions about what sections are missing here, and what perhaps shouldn't be in Controversies. A lot of that was completely sidetracked by the scientific consensus on safety issue and is now...buried. --Tsavage (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

One significant piece of buried discussion is the still-not-closed rfc 'RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section?' in Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 9. Dialectric (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone suggest dividing the controversy section into two sub-headings (e.g.Health and Safety and Other)? Keep the main the same but make it easier for the readers to find the section they are interested in. AIRcorn (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep this article about the stuff that is consensus and push the disagreements elsewhere. Think about the readers. The controversies are hugely complicated. People need us to give them the basics. Lfstevens (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Basics like a molecular diagram for the 'Structure of sucrose'? Dialectric (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't me! Lfstevens (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Lfstevens: "Keep this article about the stuff that is consensus and push the disagreements elsewhere" That's exactly the approach that imo leads to problems, it suggests that we structure content based on how well editors deal with editing, rather than by the needs of the subject. By this thinking, because there is disagreement over "safety," for example, or certain aspects of safety, stick safety in a Controversies section, and cover it in detail elsewhere, in a controversies article, disregarding the pretty common sense conclusion that one of the most basic questions a general reader is likely to have in mind coming to a GM foods article is, how safe is it? Or what is the public perception? Etc. --Tsavage (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

And to clarify, whether we're talking about finding consensus in the world at large or finding consensus among Wikipedia editors, same difference, as there seems to be little WP:RS/AC consensus out there, so it usually comes down to consensus in here. --Tsavage (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

We're stuck with each other. This war doesn't get won. We should present the best (secondary) evidence on safety and everything else. Article structure isn't about sources. It has to be about common sense and compromise given the steadfast disagreements. What procedure would you propose as an alternative? Lfstevens (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you ask. There's an approach to basic article development that I've been trying on another page that got some traction, and I think it can work anywhere. It's very easy to follow, practical, solidly policy-based, hard to game, and can be worked on by as few as one or two editors (even in the midst of a battle). It also kinda keeps every half-reasonable editor at least somewhat focused on the bigger picture, no matter how detailed and dispute-y things may get around a particular item. Sounds fantastic? I'll post it soon. --Tsavage (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Posted below as "Basic questions this article should be able to answer with ease." --Tsavage (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good way to get consensus on article structure! Lfstevens (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight in "controversies section"

There is an egregious WP:UNDUE violation in the controversies section, which I will detail below:

1. Discussion about the consensus receiving one sentence, while an obscure Canadian advocacy group having the exact same amount of weight. I tried to include material from the lead from the daughter article, but was reverted instead of leaving said material intact. This is the overview section about the daughter article, not the dumping ground for every single advocacy groups' opinion. We should be including major scientific groups' opinions, not these.
2. The discussion of Seralini is completely undue here. Again, for perspective, we spend one sentence about the scientific consensus, and 4 about Seralini. That is ridiculous. Discussion about Seralini doesn't belong in this main article.
3. ENSSER, like the above group, is an advocacy group. not a major scientific or governmental body. As such, their opinion does not belong in this overview section.
4. "One particular concer" sentence is sourced to low quality sources. There is no indication that this deserves mention in a broad overview section (i.e. what major high quality source discusses this and provides context to suggest that this is a particular concern?
5. The sentence about "one study" is only one of thousands of studies in this area. There is no indication why this particular study is important from a high quality secondary source. Yobol (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with some of your concerns about the removed material, but think much of this material could be condensed and reworded rather than removed. 1 sentence about Seralini would be more appropriate than 4 or 0 - it is a significant event in the history of GMO controversy regardless of one's opinion of his research. The Canadian group could be better merged into a sentence about GMO skeptics, which briefly mentions and wikilinks the group such as 'groups who have taken positions opposing GMOs include A, B, and C. Groups who call for more testing include D, E, F" with refs for each group.

I would love to see a single sentence that presented the Seralini mess reasonably. Without that, I say it goes. Lfstevens (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"If we can't handle it, let's make it go away" isn't a good editing approach - if we're talking policy, it is a basic violation of NPOV. --Tsavage (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

^I agree. Also, the Controversies article hardly approaches the subject in an NPOV way as many, including me, have noted numerous times. Trying to make this section as non-NPOV as the controversies articles is not a move in the right direction. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I reject the view that the section should be 'about the daughter article' Genetically modified food controversies which has its own significant problems. The articles shouldn't drift far apart, but the argument that one can't change without the other serves only to obstruct article improvement. The content you added introduced bias in that it attempts to overwhelm the section with references and content about the safety of GMOs, presenting a one-sided debate rather than discussing the controversy directly.Dialectric (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but considering the section to be a summary of the daughter (essentially summarizing the lead section) is generally a good strategy (that may or may not work in this case.) Lfstevens (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The lede section of the controversy article does not summarize the controversy article. Paragraph two was written more like a PR press release by the GMO industry to convince readers that labeling GMO's is foolish and unnecessary using some of the exact same language used on ballot measures to oppose labeling. The lede should be a summary of the actual controversies rather than start taking a strong stand defending the industry position, and then saying saying anyone who disagrees with the industry position is just an advocate. In addition paragraph 2 actually has misleading information regarding regulation, which I have pointed out before. So, no, following the poor example of the lede of the Controversy section is not a good idea. That section needs work. Fortunately, some improvement has been seen since ArbCom GMO was initiated. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dialectric: "I reject the view that the section should be 'about the daughter article'" ← WP:SYNC is a content guideline, and we should try to follow it. Alexbrn (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

We should edit by evaluating content first, not arguing rules over content. This is returning to the same problematic arguments that plagued the last long discussions about this article, based more on interpretations of rules like SYNC/SUMMARY, than practical evaluation of content. The framing of the Controversies article has significant problems, as does this article: some basic decisions about how to split articles were made a while back by very few editors, and they are now part of the infrastructure, which in turn fuels more dispute as we try to fit content into a poor framework.

The core problem imo is that an unwise spinoff of the Genetically modified crops article was made a couple of years ago, without clear justification of the scope the new GM foods article - both articles cover much of the same territory, as the majroity of GM ag production is for food of some sort. Genetically modified food as a standalone suggests a broad look at food for humans, including an overview of what foods are actually involved, and, equally, public perception, health and safety, regulation, and other social issues (some subtopics of which would be considered controversies). Instead, we have an article that tries to justify "food vs crops" by devoting an inordinate amount of space to the likes of sugar, lecithin and vegetable oil, and how GM papaya saved the day (when these are all simply subtopics within their own articles, like, Sugar).

If we don't fix the core organization of the related articles, we'll always have continual arguments and poor content. Good reference content should start with a proper place for everything, and everything in its place... --Tsavage (talk)

@Tsavage: I would like to see your proposals for structural improvements. I suggest the discussion take place here or here where the structure was debated and probably established for the current organization of articles back in 2012. We would of course alter and refer everyone in the affected articles to that page if the discussion is to take place there. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting! In the earlier, protracted GM food discussions, I looked at the creation of this article via History, but had no idea of these discussions about the overall structure of the related articles, tucked away in WikiProject Genetics. It seems like there were only two editors mainly involved, with a third commenting here and there.

My humble suggestion is to start with this article, and first go through the "basic questions that should be easily answered" process. My reasoning: we can spend time discussing outlines, even come to agreement, and then some version of all hell breaking loose like as not will happen when we get to actual editing. Instead, the FAQ-check process provides a policy-based, immediately actionable basis for organizing a single article, which naturally leads to its connection with other articles: organizing bottom up. I say policy-based because our highest purpose, policy-enshrined, is to create accessible, unbiased, non-technical content, and it's all but impossible to argue against the most basic questions not being answered, and against clearly answering them.

This FAQ-check/usability approach is really powerful, provided you actually go through the steps. I literally went back to the article for each of the questions I tested (above) - no matter how familiar one is with the material, literally testing it each time makes a huge difference: skim the lead, check the ToC, etc, then see what sort of answer you got. Once you've done it, it's hard to argue against the obvious; if something is not there, or not clear, or significantly hard to find, and you know it, it is difficult to argue a favored position (consciously or unconsciously) that somehow opposes a simple, unbiased answer. --Tsavage (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That RFC occurred years ago. Like many it was poorly attended and never closed. I would not re-open it. Just link to it if you start a new one. AIRcorn (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Tsavage Thanks for the response. I have not yet looked carefully into the FAQ questions you proposed. I think we might all have a different list of what would be in a FAQ, especially given each editor's different knowledge and interests about GMO's--not sure on that. Perhaps we could get a list from say Google searches on what people ask most often about GMO's which might be more representative of "typical questions" people would like answered, but of course even that has the problem that people may be asking the "wrong" questions or change their questions once they learn more. Informing the reader may go beyond simply answer the questions they want answered. For example, few uninformed readers are going to come asking who Seralini is, but if we do our job correctly, readers who want to know all about GMO's will certainly want to read the articles: Séralini Affair or Pusztai affair. I am certainly aware of existing lists of FAQ's, such as the WHO's list.

I would be okay discussing it here, but I think we need a new section for that, and subsections or it will be a complete mess! We must first organize the discussion on organizing!  :-) --David Tornheim (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Tsavage and Aircorn, since we are talking about organizational issues, as I mention here, I think the article Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms should be changed to "Regulation of genetically modified organisms" or perhaps even "Regulation of GMO's". I would welcome comment there.--David Tornheim (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Obviously I agree with you given the discussion above (#restored deleted material). The moratorium is already mentioned and has been proposed by more mainstream groups than the Canadian one so it is redundant in any case. Pusztai is historically more significant than Seralini anyway. This probably does need a rewrite, but until we figure out how to structure it we should still display the balanced version. AIRcorn (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yobol: I am puzzled by your three consecutive edits to the material, which have completely changed the sense of the previous version, where two paragraphs addressed 1) studies finding against safety, and 2) lack of information on long-term effect, by replacing them with one massive, 470-word paragraph that appears to be structured as an argument for safety. Your edit summaries describe what you did, but not why, with the exception of moving Institutes of Medicine material to the top ("as an organization needs more prominence"). In a Controversies section, why have you removed focus from the presumably controversial positions, like opposing studies and long-term effects, and focused on positive safety claims stated as the scientific mainstream position? --Tsavage (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

One way to deal with undue issues is to reduce the minority view. Another, and what it looks like happened here, is to increase the majority. AIRcorn (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. This application of UNDUE as if it's some sort of binding order, where one view must be literally balanced by an appropriate ratio of words about a different or opposing view, located in close proximity, is an odd way to interpret NPOV policy, and it's not consistent with simple coherent writing. A properly structured article presents information in cohesive units, and allows the readers to form their own conclusions.

A good article finds its balance in well-considered main sections, with headings followed by introductory paragraphs that summarize and frame, and subsections with appropriately narrowed and more specific focus, and it's all we need to assure that readers are not mislead. Poorly formed sections like GMF "Controversies" are hard to follow or make sense of, and equally hard to edit, because they do not make clear what they are talking about. It's pretty obvious to anyone trying to actually read it.

In addition, this idea of literally increasing or decreasing, essentially, word count to establish balance is the perfect way to ensure adversarial editing, (ec)by encouraging insertion and deletion rather than improved wording. --Tsavage (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is policy. In cases where we are giving such a large berth of article space to a minority view (at best), that's a problem. Some people may not like that too much of the content generally means it needs to be removed, but that's where we sit in terms of policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, WP:UNDUE and the entirety of WP:NPOV is about creating well-structured content that present information in an unbiased and non-confusing, plainly stated way, while the current "Controversies" section is anything but, and the large edit in question imo makes it that much worse. That was my original comment, still unaddressed. --Tsavage (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit was to properly place into context what appeared to be material that was taken out of context. If we are to use material from a source, we have to use the material in context, so as to not inappropriately mislead the reader as to the conclusions of the actual source. All sections need to abide by NPOV and DUE, which will require that the mainstream scientific context be front and center, and that attempts to cherry pick negative "controversies" for the sake of "controversy" needs to be removed. Yobol (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversy sections should be avoided and instead controversies should be put in the relevant part of the article. In this case, the only controversy included in the section concerns safety and should be in a separate safety section. TFD (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

A number of editors were in support of a separate safety section in June 2014 - see Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 9 and before. Jytdog effectively blocked this change and forced the Rfc which appears in that archive.Dialectric (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus can change and editors come and go. It was argued that "food safety is the heart of the controversy over GM foods." I do not see what relevance that has. Safety is an issue that the article would address whether or not there was a controversy since it was one of the considerations studied by scientists when GMO foods were developed. For example, the FDA determined Flavr Savr tomatoes were safe before allowing their sale. The FDA developed a regulation for new crops in 1971, and a book called Safety Assessment of Genetically Engineered Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study of the Flavr Savr Tomato was published in 1992.[1] All kinds of consumer products are tested and that does not necessarily mean there is a controversy. TFD (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am in favor of a safety section - that seems like such an obvious subsection. To the extent there's disagreement or controversy it can be covered there. I agree also that there should generally not be a "controversies" section that serves as a catch all. Minor4th 02:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above, a separate health risks/safety section is a no-brainer simply on the basis of providing basic information about the topic, while trying to categorize the entire topic as a one big controversy is a hugely biased approach. --Tsavage (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I would support a health section (definitely not health risks and probably not safety). AIRcorn (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Why? Safety seems to be a neutral section name. AlbinoFerret 13:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, why "definitely not health risks and probably not safety" - at present, GM food safety is a significant issue, in science, government, and media, and commonly stated as such: why would we not plainly reflect what is in the sources? From a sample of GM food FAQs:

• Are GM foods safe? (WHO)
• Are GMOs safe? (Non-GMO Project)
• Are foods from genetically engineered plants safe? (FDA)
• Are foods and ingredients developed through biotechnology (or GMOs) safe to eat? (Monsanto)

The language and intent seem clear and consistent across the board from this diverse set of prominent organizations. Why would we be taking a different approach than our sources? --Tsavage (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Health risks implies there are risks so is not a neutral title for a section, especially considering the scientific consensus that they no more riskier than "normal" food. Safety is different to health and I think health covers what we want better. The main concern presented by the opposition is that we don't know the long-term effects of GM food, which falls squarely under health (I actually can't think of any safety issues that are not health issues). AIRcorn (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I would generally be opposed to a safety section at this time as it opens us up for even more WP:COATRACKING. We've been having problems in this article with fringe sources (Non-GMO project is one) being tacked on in opposition to the scientific consensus statement. The controversies article already covers safety in general. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Being opposed to content or article organization that's based on an overwhelming number of reliable sources, because it may lead to COATRACKING, is not much of an argument. Where is food safety NOT clearly and centrally discussed in the mainstream conversation about GM food, in science, government, media, and the public? --Tsavage (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the controversies article it appears to be a type of WP:POVFORK to shift off areas of disagreement. AlbinoFerret 16:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, and with a Controversies article in place, WP:SUMMARY/WP:SYNC arguments are deployed to keep the wide range of material that is in the Controversies article, the majority of which describes no controversy whatsoever, contained in one minimal, negatively-titled section, "Controversies," here in GM food. This is all plainly evident in the published content, and in Talk page history. --Tsavage (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree with Yobol here. The best thing to do is reduce the minority view through removal of advocacy groups and things like Seralini that are not appropriate comparisons to mainstream scientific consensus. Such things should get no mention at all per WP:FRINGE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversies rewrite

To stop my head from exploding, I rewrote the section. My rewrite reveals the lack of proportionality even in the rewrite. The original was worse. I advocate leaving in only the first two paragraphs, but I cleaned up the rest in case that isn't satisfactory. The thing is, many of the other sections of this article discuss the corresponding controversy, but aren't in this section. Chaos. Lfstevens (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Labeling could be mentioned under regulation and farming under crops. You could do away with the controversies heading altogether and have something like public perception and first include information on what the public thinks about GM food (surveys and the like). AIRcorn (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nice clean-up, which makes the section content clear. The intro paragraphs offer a laundry list of issues and actors, with some general description, but doesn't describe any actual controversies. "Food safety" presents varioius scientific and other views, and is the stub of its own section. "Labeling" already has a subsection in "Regulation" and should be merged there (for now, at least). Superweeds, labeled "Farming," belongs in something like "Environmental impact." None of the subsections describe any specific controversy, and should not be labeled as such.

I'm not strictly for or against "Controversies" sections: they have become a common feature in Wikipedia articles, and they are convenient for checking that aspect of a subject. They should be used when warranted, to describe actual controversies, in general, those with specific positions, actors, events, and a time frame, disputed in a public, heated way. For example, GM food labeling may engender heated public debate (particularly and notably in the US), while a specific controversy might be the campaigning around the California Proposition 37, 2012 GMO labeling statute (major news org headlines like, "Accusations fly over alleged FBI probe of campaign against Prop. 37" help to indicate a distinct controversy; from a citation in the article, btw) - follow the sources.

Before arguments about a topic, there are the facts and positions that define the topic, and imo those are what we should be concerned with presenting first, in an unbiased way. --Tsavage (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

While a good attempt, this edit had a few issues when I had to tweak. I like the general framework though. A few things:

First is that we are only summarizing the controversies article per WP:SUMMARY, so we shouldn't let that content spill over into other sections. The controversies article is meant handle the safety topics, etc. so we should keep that in the controversies section overall. That's why I returned the section to the controversies section, but subsectioned at least so they show in the ToC. We also don't want to change the scientific consensus statement. We had enough trouble with that at RfC already, and we shouldn't ever drop the term scientific consensus in rewrites.

The second is we want to avoid language about "sides" per WP:GEVAL as we can get into editorializing the situation a bit. I made a few teaks that just removed some of the language that still conveys the controversy. On the disputed studies piece as well, I removed the citations per summary standards again because we are actually citing the controversies article and the studies covered there, not the studies themselves. That way, the content here is valid regardless of what studies are added to the controversies article. Otherwise, I think we're sitting ok. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversies

Main article: Genetically modified food controversies

The genetically modified foods controversy is comprised of a set of disputes over the use of food made from genetically modified crops. The disputes involve consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, environmental and political activists and scientists. The major disagreements include whether GM foods can be safely consumed, harm the environment and/or are adequately tested and regulated. The scientific research and publication process has been challenged by both sides. Farming-related disputes include the use and impact of pesticides, seed production and use, side effects on non-GMO crops/farms and potential control of the GM food supply by seed companies.

The conflicts have continued unabated since GM foods were invented and show no signs of resolution (to the satisfaction of both sides). They have occupied the media, the courts, local, regional and national governments and international organizations that have produced an inconsistent panoply of outcomes in various jurisdictions.

Food safety

Multiple national and international scientific organizations have supported the claims that no marketed GM food presents a greater risk to human health than its conventional alternative. A 2004 report by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council found that "genetic engineering is no inherently hazardous process". The report also stated "Adverse health effects from genetic engineering have not been documented in the human population, but the technique is new and concerns about its safety remain". The report stated that any method of producing new foods could lead to unwanted changes so that singling out genetic engineering is "scientifically unjustified," and called for case-by-case assessment for all novel foods.

Opponents claim that long-term health risks have not been adequately assessed and propose various combinations of additional testing, labeling or removal from the market. The advocacy group European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), disputes the claim that "science" supports the safety of current GM foods, proposing that each GM food must be judged on case-by-case basis. The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment called for removing GM foods from the market pending long term health studies. Multiple (disputed) studies have found health effects relating to GM foods or to the pesticides used with them.

Labeling

Labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in 64 countries. US national policy is to require a label only given significant composition differences or documented health impacts, although some individual states enacted laws requiring them.

Farming

The most widely-planted GMOs are designed to tolerate herbicides. By 2006 some weed populations had evolved to tolerate some of the same herbicides. Palmer amaranth is a weed that competes with cotton. A native of the southwest, it has traveled east and was first found resistant to glyphosate in 2006, less than 10 years after GM cotton was introduced.

References

References

revert some changes by Yobol

I reverted two edits by Yobol made without first gaining consensus: this edit and this edit. The first edit consolidated information into one paragraph creating a mess, which I believe Tsavage corrected. The second edit is more troubling, because the edit notes say "reword to add context", but in fact, it is a major rewrite of quotes from the source to reduce criticsm/controversy regarding the lax U.S. regulation compared to Europe's use of a case-by-case assessment. This is the "controversy" section is it not? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, WP:DRNC in response to "without first gaining consensus". There doesn't appear to be any problem with Yobol's edits, especially the second one listed. Their edit summary said they were going to do that, and that's what's in the edit. Yobol only summarized what the case-by-case basis actually means. It sounds like you're inserting a personal viewpoint re: the "lax" U.S. regulation comment, which is also very much at odds with what Yobol reworded and the source itself, so it looks like Yobol's edit should be reinstated.

There was no significant change to meaning in Yobol's edit, but it did clarify the standpoints of the source better. However, the idea that crops can have deleterious traits from breeding, etc. is actually part of the scientific consensus on safety relating to GMOs, so we should be careful not to include it as a viewpoint that is somehow against GMOs. The source in this context shouldn't be viewed as criticism or controversy in the first place. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That American regulation of GMO's is lax compared to the E.U. is well established is RS [2] [3] and our articles. If this 2004 Report (which admittedly falls on the side defending Substantial Equivalence) is not part of the controversy, then why is it getting so much space? Perhaps the even bigger problem is that this Report does not really address the controversy that the U.S. has no legislation specifically for GMO's and does not test GMO's on a case-by-case basis like in Europe. Expanding coverage of the article to focus on Substantial Equivalence and reducing the focus on calls for case-by-case testing muddles the controversy. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've hit the central issue with GM food coverage, the unique US regulatory situation - a full explanation of this is entirely absent from all of the GMO articles I've read, and it seems to be the source of a fundamental bias problem. The key points as I understand them are:

• Before the 1980s, the US and European stances on food purity were reversed, the US for decades was very cautious with food developments, publicly and at the federal level.
• Political decisions in the US were made (non-publicly) in the 1980s regarding the emerging biotech field, with decision to not regulate GM food separately, and go the "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) route, while Europe in the 1990s went the other way, with stringent GMO regulation.
• The US maintains a uniquely favorable regulatory environment for biotech development.
• The majority of scientific statements and position papers about GM that we cite are American, framed by the US situation, where GM food is by default treated no differently than non-GM food.

None of this questions any of the science, but it does present important context for reading US scientific statements and reports, especially those commissioned by the government, as they are intended to comment on and contribute to existing GRAS food policy (unless, of course, that policy is definitively shown to be wrong, by discovery of a clear and present danger from GM food, which hasn't been the case to date).

Our GM articles do not present this context. Looking at the science from the American GRAS position, one would highlight no evidence of harm so far, no inherent risk in method, etc. Considering the same set of scientific findings in a precautionary situation, the focus would be more on, for example, long-term effects, traceability, assumptions made in the current regulations, and so forth.

It's all the same science, just different political framings. Our articles focus on one aspect, the shorter term, generally recognized as safe position, which is primarily American. What some editors characterize as "minority views" regarding significant gaps in knowledge, long-term effects, etc, are not in fact "minority," they are simply different aspects of the same body of scientific findings.

Covering GM food from a primarily US position seems to me to be the essence of non-neutral, POV-based coverage. --Tsavage (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree with David and Tsavage, and yes, insisting on US POV is called "systemic bias." Jusdafax 20:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tsavage: Thank you so much for that comment. That is *exactly* what I was trying to express in my short paragraph, and you did an excellent job of fleshing it all out. This is something I have been concerned about since first encountering these articles--the very strong American bias. Fortunately, post-ArbCom there is a real possibility of correcting this problem. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved discussion about Archiving here. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tsavage: Re: American Bias: I suggest you create a new topic called "NPOV: American Bias", or something like that, include your comments of 15:30, 5 January 2016, add in the refs I included ([4] [5]) and any others you think are appropriate, and also link in other discussions like this, this, this, this, this, here. I would be happy to do that if you are okay with my moving (or copying your comments) for that purpose, like I did with the archiving discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

When we discuss food safety, we are supposed to follow WP:MEDRS, which eliminates U.S. or Euro-centric bias. The only MEDRS-compliant sources presented here say that there is no consensus in the scientific literature about safety. TFD (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, as far as MEDRS goes in this area. As I understand it, though, GM food assurance is largely a function of regulation, based on substantial equivalence, comparing the composition of two plants (or other organisms), GM and non-GM, to see whether they're basically the same, which I don't think involves MEDRS. As always, please correct me if I'm wrong or oversimplifying! --Tsavage (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

^Agreed about MEDRS. One of the problems here is that a number of editors wish to apply the MEDRS standard beyond its scope. GMOs are not simply a medicine having to do with medical advice, where we must carefully limit anything said about them as to avoid potential medical malpractice and giving medical advice. (This is not a medical encyclopedia: If it were we would only allow M.D.'s and scholars of medicine to edit it.) GMOs involve political, historical, legal and regulatory concerns that go far beyond science and medicine, but a number of editors have tried to impose a strictly MEDRS standard on material in the GMO articles when it is inappropriate. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Disagree on the word "lax". I could accept "less stringent", but prefer to just (briefly) describe the differences. Does not the US issue explicit approvals for each "product"? E.g., the GM salmon review (or "review") consumed 17 years. Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms#Europe states

"All GMOs, along with irradiated food, are considered "new food" and subject to extensive, case-by-case, science based food evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)."

Thus, I would say something like

"European regulations treat GMFs and irradiate food as "new foods" with a separate approval system, while US regulations treat them as "generally regarded as similar" and regulate them as they do other food products. Neither jurisdiction independently tests GMFs.

I note that the article does not state that Europe independently tests GMFs, only that its approval process is different. Assuming I didn't miss something, and given the increased concern there, that is disappointing. As it stands the system appears to be about managing public fears, not public safety. Money, mouth, etc. Lfstevens (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

And on MEDRS. Given the rapidly blurring line between food and medicine (nutraceuticals, etc.), I think the more restrictive rule is appropriate. (A kind of precautionary principle for content, if you will.) It's analogous to the (now ignored?) rule of journalism to get two sources for anything controversial. Lfstevens (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Certainly MEDRS is overused, but whether or not food is safe to eat is a health claim. And even if it were not, we should mention whether there is a consensus on safety and if so what it is, as well of course as explaining what regulators have said, as well as the agricultural industry and anti-GMO advocacy groups. TFD (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Lax" may not be the ideal word to describe the US regulatory system, something like "dysfunctional" or "a mess" might be more accurate. A 2014 Library of Congress report on GMO restrictions in the US notes that "A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US’s approach to regulating GMOs," and if you read some of the relevant reports by legal scholars, you find the three-agency set-up suffers from significant gaps, overlaps, and irrational inconsistencies, agencies working outside their areas of expertise, and the results of trying to fit GM into decades old legislation not designed to handle biotech (introduced genes and their expression products are considered "food additives" under an ancient defintion, that's the basis of US GM food safety regulation). None of this is mentioned in any of our articles.
• What indicates the "rapidly blurring line between food and medicine"? I don't see how MEDRS can solely apply to food safety here, from what I gather, MEDRS favors review studies of multiple RCTs and other primary medical research - is there a substantial body of research on the effects of GM food on humans? The scientific agreement on safety statement is not MEDRS-based, so that would have to go. What would remain under food safety? --Tsavage (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The latest review study was Domingo & Bordonaba 2011,[6] and similar studies were written by Domingo in 2000 and 2006. Their conclusion was that there was insufficient testing. Note that lawyers who argue there is insufficient testing must rely on expert medical opinion. Legal training does not qualify one to read through all the studies and form a conclusion on their adequacy. Check the papers by lawyers and see what they base their opinions on. TFD (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on GM food safety

For reference, the highest-quality single source that I've seen, that directly addresses broad scientific opinion on GM food safety, says this in its entirety:

Scholarly Opinion

Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council,[12] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[13] and the American Medical Association.[14]

Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations,[15] organic farming organizations,[16] and consumer organizations.[17] A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US’s approach to regulating GMOs.[18]

This is from a 2014 Library of Congress report, "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States". --Tsavage (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)