Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please help to evaluate the statement: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food." groupuscule (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Framing Statement: Commenters, please note that (1) this does not say "all GM food is safe" (it is limited to currently marketed food that has passed the regulatory bar - it says nothing about crops that have been removed from the market (like Starlink) nor about theoretical foods that might for example cause allergic reactions) and (2) it is relative to conventional food, which is not 100% safe. Also, commenters please note that this statement is limited to the safety of eating GM food - it says nothing about the safety of pesticides or herbicides per se; it says nothing about environmental issues with GM crops; it says nothing about patents or other economic issues; it says nothing about whether monoculture/big ag is a good thing or a bad thing; it says nothing about whether current regulatory systems are adequate; it says nothing about labelling. One of the very hard issues in the extensive discussions we have had on this page has been that people objecting to this statement have discussed other issues. Thanks for your help, all. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC) (note - originally included my vote with the framing statement. Edited to make the framing statement neutral, as was the RfC. Moved my "vote" to a separate comment. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC))

Sources being used to support the statement

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers American Medical Association (2012). Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods World Health Organization. Food safety: 20 questions on genetically modified foods. Accessed December 22, 2012. United States Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full-text. National Academies Press. See pp11ff on need for better standards and tools to evaluate GM food. A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010) (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Union. 2010. p. 16. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. Other sources: Winter CK and Gallegos LK (2006). Safety of Genetically Engineered Food. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Communications, Publication 8180. Ronald, Pamela (2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics. 188 (1): 11–20. Miller, Henry (2009). "A golden opportunity, squandered" (PDF). Trends in biotechnology. 27 (3): 129–130. Bett, Charles (August 2010). "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food". Food Policy. 35 (4): 332–340. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.01.003. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Li, Quan; McCluskey, Jill; Wahl, Thomas (2004). "Effects of information on consumers' willingness to pay for GM-corn-fed beef". Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization. 2 (2): 1–16. Dr. Christopher Preston, AgBioWorld 2011. Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods. List of sources added by Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Solidly supported by the science, hotly contested politically. This is the heart of the problem; there are a lot of people who are worried about food from GM crops, and questions of whether it should be allowed on the market and/or labelled are hot political questions. The statement above reflects the scientific consensus on whether it is safe enough to eat GM food, and is well supported by sources in the article.Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC) (note - Moved my "vote" to this comment, out of the framing statement. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC))

• The politicization of the GMO issue has clearly affected "the science", as well as institutions which represent "the science". This is a source of complaints about the AAAS report and others. groupuscule (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The link is to a userspace page. See below for discussion. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

But that's not at all what the RfC is about: it's whether "there is broad scientific consensus," not whether the scientific consensus should exist in the opinions of individual Wikipedians or is based on shady dealings or is unduly influenced by conflicts of interest. When reliable sources are published stating that the current, overwhelming scientific consensus is illusory and has been shaped by fraudsters who are secretly or openly paid off by biotech companies, we can certainly address that in the article. But it still doesn't change that the current, broad consensus is verifiable. SpectraValor (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• As someone coming here from the RfC and new to the page, I agree 100% with everything that Jytdog just said. Looking narrowly at the question as written and as Jytdog has framed it, the science claiming a lack of safety is WP:FRINGE. However, as a political or social view, it is probably the mainstream view that GMOs are risky. And it is clearly possible to create a GMO that would, scientifically, not be safe to eat. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Jyt is far too kind to the other side on this issue, but he's also correct on the basic point: the statement is accurate according to the science, and hotly contested by people holding a fringe viewpoint on the matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, there is no "stalemate" on the matter, as the requester suggested, just personal opinions versus Wikipedia policies. The reliable sources are about as close to unanimous as you can get in science. When the WHO and the American Medical Association and many others change their positions, there will be something to evaluate in an RfC. Today, it is a waste of everyone's time. SpectraValor (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• The statement in question accurately represents the scientific consensus as it exists in WP:reliable sources. This issue has been thoroughly debated in talk and no evidence has been presented that the statement is inaccurate in any way in regards to the scientific field. BlackHades (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Statement supported exactly per Jytdog, above, IMO and by some knowledge of this literature. The point about this being risk through consumption I would say is particularly important. Also, probably also worth confirming that this is GM food that has already been cleared by, e.g., the FDA (i.e. "approved for market"); the stuff that doesn't clear such reviews is probably notably more risky. FYI: Nature (journal) has had some recent review articles on exactly this topic which will bear this out (e.g., ~2-3 months ago?), though I'm sure a number of people on this page already know that. DanHobley (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: that Nature review is here: [1]. You may need to have a Nature subscription/institutional access; I'm inside a uni network right now, so it's hard to check. Anyone looking to substantiate claims of current scientific consensus would do a lot worse than to work from this. Note it doesn't actually address human health risks specifically however. It's more environmentally focussed. It also occurs to me that the statement could be made even more robust by explicit recognition that some authors have questioned the existence of the consensus - e.g., by making it "There is broad—but not unanimous<refs>—scientific consensus that..." IMO main objections could be summarized by something like "Many objections are based around not evidence of risk, but testing methodologies which are argued to be inadequate to demonstrate risk in humans." DanHobley (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I would disagree with adding qualifications to the statement, since (as you probably know) consensus is never expected to be unanimous. :-) Emphasizing that disagreement exists, when that disagreement is not similarly emphasized in the highest-reliability sources we have, feels to me like undue weight. That said, the lead of the article does contain a summary of objections and more information could always be added there. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with this. DanHobley (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Jytdog has summarised this perfectly. The scientific consensus is that current products on the market are safe. That's what the sources say, that's what we say, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Solidly supported by the science, yes, by scientist depending on funding by the big agricultural firms. So I put some question marks at their results. Nothing known about the long term effects too. So I oppose the statement, as too many parts have question marks or unanswered questions. The Banner talk 10:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Banner, thanks for commenting. Nice to see you here. Quick response. You have made an interesting point. The scientific consensus is that the shorter-period studies that are used in current tox testing are sufficient for understanding the chronic risks. Scientists like Seralini who are not part of the consensus, and others, advocate very strongly that longer term studies are necessary. This position is outside the current scientific consensus. I have heard from folks in the EU GRACE project that the EU is going to put out an RFP to do a 2 year feeding study properly; if that RFP goes out and if the study results are robust and surprising, that study could move the scientific consensus. But right now, the scientific consensus is that the shorter term studies are sufficient. Jytdog (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I showed up here after a feedback-request. At a minimum the statement There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food should be amended to At present, after performing only short term research, the disputed scientific consensus is that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. It should be made clear that the mentioned consensus is disputed and the the scientific data used can be biased and selective. Plus that further research, especially long term, is necessary. The Banner talk 11:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:The Banner regarding wording. The "broad scientific consensus" may be that it is safe "in regards to current testing practices" but the broad scientific consensus is also that testing practices need to be not only more rigorous but to a lessor extent also independent of the biotech companies. The current wording implies that sufficient and independent testing is actually done before release. Wayne (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We are going off track here. Current regulatory standards are based on the current scientific consensus. Advocating for higher regulatory standards is an effort to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and is not what wikipedia is for. Please let's stay on topic. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The wording proposed by The Banner and supported by Wayne is not supported by reliable sources. There is simply no basis for a change to the lead, and I would argue that if anything parts of the article give too much weight to fringe positions and widely discredited studies. SpectraValor (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is remarkable how often unwelcome research results are hammered down as "fringe". Also quite remarkeble is that fact that in an article about "controversies", you can say that the "broad scientific consensus" is a controversy in itself! The Banner talk 21:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A fringe position is not defined by whether it is welcome or unwelcome to one constituency or another, but by the extent of support in the WP:RS. The most reliable sources available, issued by some of the most respected scientific and health groups in the world, support the statement in the RfC language, as Arc de Ciel, Jytdog, and others have pointed out. SpectraValor (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the alternative wording suggested by The Banner, as pushing a POV, and, in making an assessment based on the editor's evaluation of funding of the research, as being original research. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose alternative wording as it is not supported by reliable sources. We are to report what reliable sources state, not discuss why reliable sources are saying what they say. The reasons why are irrelevant as far as wikipedia and we are not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. BlackHades (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Please read this report, which explains in some detail why I disagree with the current statement. The first section of the report describes problems with sources given in support of the statement; the second section describes some other sources which indicate serious disagreements in the scientific community. Both sections address the statement as it is currently written, comparing genetically modified foods which are currently on the market to their conventional counterparts. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Your userpage musings are not a "report," and carry no weight. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thargor is right, that's not a report, it's merely an assemblage of your opinions seasoned with hand-picked excerpts from different sources. Calling it a "report" adds unnecessary importance to it. On a related note, why aren't you discussing the following sentence: "No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food", which is backed up by overwhelming evidence. BeŻet (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• The "no reports of ill effects" statement is also questionable. See, for example, allergic reactions to Starlink corn. (Some have argued that the allergic reactions were not due to the genetic modification process; whether or not this is true, these would be a clear instance of reported ill effects.) It is also very difficult to determine whether genetically modified foods are causing "ill effects" because they permeate the food supply and are generally unlabeled. groupuscule (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Surely the lack of any obvious ill effects in the US population given market saturation by GM foods is yet more evidence against your point?? (There must be a formal reference somewhere that argues this) DanHobley (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• The RfC specifically refers to the statement about "food on the market derived from GM crops." Where is StarLink corn on the market as food? That's not all: investigation of the Starlink flap concluded that there was no evidence of allergic reactions to the stabilized protein. Groupuscule's statements are off topic but lend support to the statement about broad consensus. SpectraValor (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I specifically mentioned Starlink in the Framing Statement. Starlink was never approved for human food - it was approved for animal feed, ending up being found in human food b/c the US crop commodities handling system is not built to keep GM and nonGM commodities separate (organic does have its own channel, has not reached "commodity" stage yet either). Starlink was removed from the market after problems emerged... so it is specifically excluded from the consensus statement b/c it is not currently marketed. Sigh. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that the statement is valid as per many of the above comments, per the high-reliability sources that support the statement (e.g. American Medical Association, Institute of Medicine, United States National Research Council, etc), and per numerous discussions across multiple talk pages. Of course I'm happy to continue discussion as long as it's based in policy, but many of the objections have not been. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• If anything GM food is probably safer than conventional food as it is more regulated. AIRcorn (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Do you think so? In many countries companies are not required to mention it on food labels. Why do companies resist GMO-food labelling? Something to hide? Too much unknown about the effects and/or safety? The Banner talk 10:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the only reason companies are resisting labelling their food is because they are worried it will give them a market disadvantage. I doubt it has anything to do with actual saftey, just perceived safety. AIRcorn (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this on topic, so it is a productive RfC, OK? Jytdog (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Can people please frame their opposition to the statement based on wikipedia policy, rather than their own original research. Complaints about companies has no bearing on this RfC, which is about a specific statement related to the scientific consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed. Why GM companies resist GMO food labeling has no bearing on this RfC. What would the argument for changing the text in question be as in relates to wikipedia policies? BlackHades (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with that, too. I only started paying attention to this page when this RfC started, and I'm already concerned about the amount of WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Extended comment

I want to return to the early part of this section. SpectraValor stated: "...When reliable sources are published stating that the current, overwhelming scientific consensus is illusory and has been shaped by fraudsters who are secretly or openly paid off by biotech companies, we can certainly address that in the article. But it still doesn't change that the current, broad consensus is verifiable." Here is a peer reviewed study which justified the claim alluded to: [ http://www.ijsaf.org/archive/16/1/lotter1.pdf ]. I quote again one of the relevant sections: "The biotechnology industry lobbied to have foods derived from genetically engi- neered plants classified as no different from food from conventionally bred plants. This was known as the policy, or doctrine, of ‘substantial equivalence’. There was resistance, however, from scientists within the FDA to the policy of non-regulation and substantial equivalence of transgenic foods. A 2004 paper (Freese and Schubert, 2004) showed that there were internal FDA memos documenting an overwhelming consensus among the agency’s scientists that transgenic crops can have unpre- dictable, hard-to-detect side-effects – allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases. They had urged their superiors to require long-term studies. According to the authors of the paper, these communications were ignored." The origins of cancer and other diseases are difficult to trace, and can take years...this is one of the concerns. But, as has been pointed out, this debate is largely political. One reason for GM opponents for being on the fringe, is that appointments to high position for scientists in universities and seed companies, largely depends on them going along with the status quo. This also affects the choice of news to report. Although I could not find a WP acceptable publisher for this information, a quick Google search using "revolving door Monsanto Govt. agencies" produced a long list which was duplicated on numerous sites. Some of this is reflected and cited on this GMFControversies page. I proposed moving the paragraph following the consensus statement, to allow a voice from the anti side to speak next following these strong, and debated (by many Wik. editors), statements. I left the consensus statement intact because after months? of debate about this, the side that does not like it has had difficulty assembling enough acceptable documentation to challenge the consensus statement itself. Perhaps if they (we, I should say) were more diligent in selection and kept our comments as minimal as possible, progress could be made on this. I like Banner's suggested alternative very much. I think the literature is out there to support it. Possibly it has already been cited here or in the archives of this talk page but alas, in between unsupportable citations and too-long comments (with all due respect for the work and intent). I would also like to note the position of these scientists: [ http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/60-why-genetically-engineered-food-is-dangerous-new-report-by-genetic-engineers ]. I quote: Dr Fagan said: “Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise, and outmoded technology. It can create unexpected toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops, that do not involve GM. “Over 75% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide. This has led to the spread of herbicide-resistant superweeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure of farmers and communities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies suggest a link between herbicide use and birth defects and cancer." This is where I see the debate really headed: shall we feed the world with chemical based agriculture or focus our scientific know how on agriculture which takes care of the earth and increases human health and the health of the soil (and lessens global warming)? And yes, this should be worked into the page itself. I ask you this, as only one editor has objected to my very slight change (reversing the position of the last two paragraphs in the leading section of the page), may I consider this a consensus of editors and go ahead and make it (see most recent discussion in the "Apparently no consensus" section).Catrinka Trabont (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Catrinka, for pete's sake. You are way off topic for the RfC. This section is not the place for writing about all GMO issues under the sun. It is a specific request for comments on the specific sentence provided, and nothing else. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I will comment briefly on the two links. The Lotter source is from a sociology journal, which is the wrong scientific field for discussions of food safety; the Earth Open Source statement is self-published and does not appear to be peer-reviewed. Also, saying "there is no reliable source for this information, but..." is a really bad sign. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Catrinka, please clarify the reasoning behind switching the two paragraphs. BlackHades (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add that your statement is directly copied from this source. Please paraphrase the text. Also, as others may have mentioned, the statement seems a bit biased (see WP:Neutrality). As you explained under the RFC, perhaps add that statement and include what GMFs are less safer than in the article. You need to inform the reader of exactly how safe GMFs actually are, in relation to conventional foods, as all readers may not be aware of how safe conventional foods are. --JustBerry (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment! 4 responses:

1) Please explain how the statement is biased, when it directly reflects a number of authoritative sources.

2) The statement ("There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food.")is already paraphrased, and is not copied from that source, which has the three following statements: "Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques"; "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." and "genetic modification technologies “are not per se more risky than…conventional plant breeding technologies."

3) There is no scientific basis for saying that any one currently marketed GM food is more or less risky than another currently marketed GM food - there is nothing to inform the reader with, on that score.

4) There is no scientific basis for saying that any one currently marketed GM food is more or less risky than another currently marketed conventional food - there is nothing to inform the reader with, on that score either.

Thanks again for commenting! Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Statement is reasonable - I'm not really sure what this RfC is seeking to ask, but if the question is "should we keep the sentence", I think the answer is yes. As repeated many times above, the vast majority of scientific opinion on this matter points to the general safety of GMO. Given such, I don't see anything wrong with the statement in question. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Statement is accurately stated and well supported. We should of course not use this article to belittle or dismiss the social and political concerns surrounding the matter, but we must accurately convey the nature of the objections. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Clarification on my earlier comment: My reasons for citing this article are to support the position that the consensus statement have some sort of modification.

This does not attempt to report on scientific data itself, but rather on how the idea of consensus on safety may have been arrived at through pressures outside of the scientists themselves. It is therefore an appropriate source, as coming from a sociology journal.[ http://www.ijsaf.org/archive/16/1/lotter1.pdf ]. I quote again just a small part of the relevant sections: "The biotechnology industry lobbied to have foods derived from genetically engineered plants classified as no different from food from conventionally bred plants. This was known as the policy, or doctrine, of ‘substantial equivalence’. There was resistance, however, from scientists within the FDA to the policy of non-regulation and substantial equivalence of transgenic foods. A 2004 paper (Freese and Schubert, 2004) showed that there were internal FDA memos documenting an overwhelming consensus among the agency’s scientists that transgenic crops can have unpre- dictable, hard-to-detect side-effects – allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases. They had urged their superiors to require long-term studies. According to the authors of the paper, these communications were ignored."Catrinka Trabont (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Dubious low-ranking journal from an unknown organisation by a freelance writer. The journal editors are sociologists, not scientists. Useless as a source. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So you accept neither analysis of the field from a qualified outsider nor literature reviews from within the field. Is your position that the only acceptable sources on this topic are non-peer-reviewed statements from institutional bodies such as the AAAS? Although you claim to emphasize the scientific over the political, the sources on which you rely tend towards the latter. groupuscule (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: the article I just cited: The International Journal of Sociology of Science and Food is published by the School of Planning and Geography, Cardiff University (UK) and the Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters and the Lifelong Learning Society, Florida Atlantic University (USA). It "...provides a forum for debates about international issues related to food and agriculture, and welcomes contributions from the social sciences, including sociology, science and technology studies, human geography, political science, and consumer, management and environmental studies...All articles published in this journal have undergone internal editorial scrutiny and external, triple-blind peer review." It is the official publication of the Research Committee on Sociology of Agriculture and Food (RC-40)of the International Sociological Association (ISA).

You might consider reading it. Catrinka Trabont (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that the first paragraph attempts to assert the existence of "a flood of evidence," I don't think you can claim it doesn't attempt to address scientific data. There seem to be similar appeals to scientific evidence or data in every other paragraph. You might consider reading it. ;-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying something about the anti-GM position. We support the scientific method, scientific review, the concept of consensus, and so on. What troubles us is that, in order for these processes to work, the researchers have to be free to discover and report results which fall in any direction. If the research is paid for solely by corporations which are selling the product in question, too much pressure exists in favor of accepting the product for the research to be "unbiased".

Since what research we have on GM foods so far, and the reporting on that research, has largely been paid for by the companies themselves, the idea that there is a scientific consensus supporting GM foods is therefore under dispute. Biological studies will not demonstrate this problem, although the way they were performed, reported, or paid for may be used as examples. We need to consult persons who track political trends, public relations trends, sociology. That is why this study is relevant to our discussion.Catrinka Trabont (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Statement is reasonable per the discussions above. That does not mean that large scale reliable sources with different opinions should not be mentioned, but WP:FRINGE should be kept in mind. Andrew³²⁷ 15:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Statement is accurate That does not mean of course that we may someday find something wrong with them, but the same applies to anything people eat. In fact cooking oil, one of the major GMO products, does not even have GMO molecules in it. Nor is there any theoretical reason why GMO would be more harmful than non-GMO. It is known however that virtually everything made with GMO or from animals fed GMO is bad for you, but that is another issue. TFD (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Although specific to crops modified for insect resistence, this quote is closer to the prevailing consensus than the current quote in the WP article.

  Scientists do not have full knowledge of the risks and benefits of any insect management strategies. Bt plants were deployed with the expectation that the risks would be lower than current or alternative technologies and that the benefits would be greater. Based on the data to date, these expectations seem valid. - DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145309

  Based on the many peer reviewed articles I've seen on GM safety this quote [my bold] is probably the best that can be said for GM safety. Other objections to the definitive "broad scientific consensus" are found in many many others such as Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops (Trends in Biotechnology Volume 21, Issue 10, October 2003, Pages 439–444) which holds that Substantial Equivalence is "controversial" and hampers "the actual safety assessment" and Seeking clarity in the debate over the safety of GM foods (Nature Volume 402, December 1999, pages 575-576) holds that GM food regulation is "unsatisfactory" due to the "assumption" that "genetic engineering does not differ from conventional selective breeding." Wayne (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as a brief comment, both of these sources are more than ten years old; "to date" here means "as of 2002." I'm not aware of whether there was a consensus at that time (there may have been), but even if there were not, more recent sources take precedence. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Mixed support The statement of consensus is fine and supported after decades of work. What i don't like is the use of the word broad. It's on the verge of puffery, and at a stretch I could make an argument that we are making up the readers mind for them. Change or remove the word broad to infer less bias.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 09:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Source fidelity

I may not have said this as clearly before, but there are currently 6 sources cited to support the statement: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food". I'd like someone to go through each source and draw out the quote that they think supports this statement. Here's my first attempt:

1. (AAAS) is easy as the statement is largely drawn from this source: "Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques"
2. (AMA): the results says "Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature. However, a small potential for adverse events exists, due mainly to horizontal gene transfer, allergenicity, and toxicity" and goes on to say "the FDA’s science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The Council supports this science-based approach, and believes that thorough pre-market safety assessment and the FDA’s requirement that any material difference between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts be disclosed in labeling, are effective in ensuring the safety of bioengineered food. To better characterize the potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that per-market [sic] safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement". The document does not contain 'consensus' anywhere.
3. (WHO): this document is undated with no author, which I think counts strongly against it. The only use of the word consensus is in this sentence: "On issues such as labelling and traceability of GM foods as a way to address consumer concerns, there is no consensus to date". It says specifically that "No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market" (a very different statement than relative risk) and also that "Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of technology without antibiotic resistance genes has been encouraged by a recent FAO/WHO expert panel" (no elaboration on how many such products currently remain on the international marketplace).
4. (NRC): a search for consensus shows 3 hits; these all point to titles of references. I'm pretty sure I added this source to the article a few years ago and my recollection of what I read from it does not support the statement. Note that it does say that a regulatory regime which is inconsistent between different methods of modification (including conventional) is unsupportable, but this is a very different statement.
5. EU Directorate-General: the word consensus is used a few times, but never corresponding to consensus about lack of health impacts. For example the conclusion states: "Consensus was reached that a rigorous science-based risk assessment of the environmental impact, and of the possible effects on human health of foods derived from GM crops only, is not sufficient to gain public support for the introduction of this new food production technology into society".
6. I won't go through these sources since the prior sources did not look promising for support.

Do I have contrary sources? Well, yes. I'm not going to list them all here. I haven't reviewed them super-closely, but I have a few in my notes. People have already pointed to recent literature reviews by Domingo, etc. There are several such articles published in high-quality, mainstream food toxicology journals. There are a few high-profile PhD geneticists on record as questioning the safety and emphasizing uncertainty (GM Science Review First Report from the UK also seems to emphasize uncertainty). Why these have been rejected as essentially not counting or fringe (e.g., equivalent to Richard Lindzen and Energy & Environment in the global warming world) is not entirely clear. I've already said a few times that I think it seems quite plausible to me that tweaked EPSP or Cry1Ac seem unlikely to cause problems. But there is more than just that Roundup Ready and Bt on the market, and I haven't seen a lot of discussion on the various other products. It also seems that the experts, when pressed, admit that they don't actually know all the details of what triggers allergenicity, and so just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't. They can look for similarities, but they can't make absolute guarantees without in vivo testing, which doesn't occur in humans. Now, admittedly maybe any occurrence would be super-obvious and not multifactorial like most modern diseases. I don't really know, and haven't seen a good discussion. Of course, conventional food may also have obscure allergens or issues which is why the statement is OK, right? Well, the statement says the risk is 'equivalent'. What is the probability that a dozen currently-approved GMOs have identical health risks to their non-GMO equivalents? Well, do they even have non-GMO equivalents? I'm not sure they really do - I would be surprised if there were non-GMO equivalents to the GMOs which were isogenic except for that single modified trait. So it's really just a weird statement. I get that it is in the abstract, in a very general philosophical sense. I realize that the AAAS board made it (in a political context, and I'm not sure the board has any toxicologist members) but that doesn't mean it really makes sense. One of the methods in conventional breeding is mutagenesis, which the NRC lists on page 64 as having more unintended effects. II | (t - c) 06:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the concerns you are raising seem to me to deal with situations that lie outside of the very specific wording of the text we are considering, according to the "framing statement" at the top of this RfC. It's true that the sources deal with uncertainties about things that reside outside of the scope of the framing statement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are overly concerned with the word "consensus." Personally, I don't consider there to be much difference between saying "There is a broad scientific consensus that X is true" and simply "X is true," at least when talking about a scientific statement as we are here. To the extent that any of your comments can be addressed by making this change in the lead, I don't think they really apply. As a result, I don't think you can conclude that the sources are weak (or that the statement is "mainly drawn from the AAAS source").

I'm very short on time right now, but I will produce the quotes from the EU source since it is a lengthy document and I'm the one who originally added it.

• "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." (pg. 17)
• "These activities provide at least equal assurance of the safety of these foods compared to conventional counterparts, provided these GM products have been approved by the EU and the national food safety evaluation procedures." (pg. 133)

The quote you cited does not appear to be relevant to the statement on scientific consensus, as it addresses the issue of public acceptance rather than scientific acceptance. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• First off, the AAAS statement does not use the word consensus, and yet I noted that it does basically support the statement. So I'm actually setting a lower bar here to start with, and the EU quote that you presented meets that bar. So we have at least two sources which are very close to the statement. However, I do think it is important that the sources use consensus: Arc, there is a difference between these three statements: (1) "I don't consider there to be much difference", (2) "there is not much difference" and (3) "there is a consensus that there is not much difference". On Wikipedia you'll see a lot of people writing in the style of (2), but that doesn't mean they are saying (3). As you may have experienced in your career, writing (1) in formal papers is often discouraged (see Should I Use “I”? at UNC). That doesn't automatically mean that whenever a scientist writes something, they are saying that the statement is uncontroversial and that a consensus exists among their peers. To read that into a statement the word consensus would be classic original research as we need the statement to be "directly supported". In fact this type of question has come up periodically on Wikipedia, where editors try to construct a consensus by stacking together a lot of sources with certain declarative statements and ignoring the sources which don't support their statement. We have a section on it called WP:SYNTH. Now, based on the fact that you used (1), I suspect you recognize that there is room for disagreement here and I hope you'll consider this and read WP:OR carefully. II | (t - c) 16:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see SYNTH happening here. Given that the AAAS source seems to be relatively noncontroversial for our purposes here, I'd like to point to a further direct quote from that source:

"Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”"

There, within that single source, is a statement that, in its plain English meaning, is tantamount to "broad scientific consensus". There is no SYNTH or any other kind of original research in reading the source that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that with the quotation presented, the AAAS statement can be reasonably summarized as broad scientific consensus. So there is one source which I think reasonably supports the statement. The other sources are debatable and in my opinion pretty iffy. I'm not sure that the AAAS source is noncontroversial, and I'm not sure that they are accurately portraying what the cited organizations have said (and the AAAS release only has 2 citations), but I'd rather not get into that can of worms right now. II | (t - c) 20:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I made my comment with respect to the word "consensus" specifically because of the issue which Tryptofish has now pointed out more directly. :-) It seems to me that your evaluation of the sources was largely based on searches for that specific word. I do consider its use here justified, but I will avoid commenting on this as it would involve starting a policy meta-discussion, and to me it's just not a very important part of the statement. Like I said, I see no problem with changing "There is a broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food" to "Food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food" and this seems like it would address most of your comments. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Specific use of the phrase "broad scientific consensus" does exist repeatedly in the sources listed so I'm not sure what the argument is here. BlackHades (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you point to this phrase? Also, Arc, we have only nailed down that 2 of the sources actually support that statement. The question then is why to use the statement that these 2 sources use rather than any alternative wording. II | (t - c) 05:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure which 2 sources you're referring to, but here are some of the sources cited to the statement in question that mention scientific consensus:

"There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." --Ronald, Pamela (2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics 188 (1): 11–20.

"As the journal Nature editorialized in 1992, a broad scientific consensus holds that ‘the same physical and biological laws govern the response of organisms modified by modern molecular and cellular methods and those produced by classical methods. ...[Therefore] no conceptual distinction exists between genetic modification of plants and microorganisms by classical methods or by molecular techniques that modify DNA and transfer genes."--Miller, Henry (2009). "A golden opportunity, squandered". Trends in biotechnology 27 (3): 129–130.

“The scientific consensus is that the food product in this survey, GM-corn-fed beef, is equivalent to the conventional beef product.”--Li, Quan; McCluskey, Jill; Wahl, Thomas (2004). "Effects of information on consumers’ willingness to pay for GM-corn-fed beef". Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 2 (2): 1–16.

“Many reviews by national and international science organizations, and reviews synthesizing the scientific knowledge on GM crops on human health show a wide consensus among the scientific community that currently available GM foods are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts and suitable for human consumption”--Bett, Charles; Ouma, James Okuro; Groote, Hugo De (August 2010). "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food". Food Policy 35 (4): 332–340.

I would say current statement in question, very accurately describes these sources. BlackHades (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

These sources are tossed at the end, among other sources. As you'll note from my analysis above, I stopped at the first 5, none of which appear to use scientific consensus. Among those you found above, #1 and $4 support the statement. #1 is Pamela Ronald alone (I can cite various peer-reviewed publications saying the opposite). In any case, if these are the sources then the others should be removed. Note that #2 and #3 are quite different - #2 is conceptual and does not discuss the current foods on the market (an empirical statement) while #3 is very far from the mark, since it discusses the safety of beef derived from cattle eating GM-corn. II | (t - c) 18:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I do dislike the fact that there are so many citations bunched together as it does give the appearance of synthesis and in my experience is a red flag that original research is occuring. I would much rather spell out what the sources are saying. If we have general agreement that the AAAS one is the best (and as it covers the other organisations already as Tryptofish has pointed out) why not just use that one. At least in the lead, which should really just be repeating information sourced in the body anyway. The second paragraph describes the consensus already and uses many of the same sources so I would consider removing the buched cites from the statement there too. AIRcorn (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, although a hunch about a red flag does not actually mean that OR is occurring. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

But why wave a red flag when it is not necessary. AIRcorn (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both comments. I would actually have removed most of the sources a while ago per CITEKILL if this weren't a topic of debate here. Perhaps at some point, we could put some in a separate talk page section where they can be easily referred to in future. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If it is decided to keep all the sources then I think a note would be the best way to present this information. As a bonus the citations would not disrupt the text. AIRcorn (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• The AAAS report, published in the weeks leading up to California's vote on GMO labeling, is unacceptable as a source. Though it may be the "best" at arguing for consensus on GMO safety, it is not of sufficiently high quality for our purposes here. It's not peer reviewed. It barely even gives evidence. It's a politicized statement issued by a small group of people, and has been described as such in other sources. The Council for Responsible Genetics issued a formal objection to it. Michele Simon wrote an article of substantial criticism, including the following:

Where did this handy list come from? The "No" campaign listed three of these four groups -- the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences -- in the official California voter guide as concluding GMO foods are safe. But in fact, the World Health Organization says that ongoing risk assessments are needed and that "GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." Meanwhile, the American Medical Association favors pre-market safety testing, which the FDA does not require. How did a science organization miss all of that?

But back to the suspicious timing of the statement's release: Who, exactly, instigated it? The statement says it's from the AAAS board of directors. Who are they? The board chair, Nina Federoff has an impressive pedigree, including a stint as science adviser to Condoleezza Rice. Curiously, Federoff has been listed as a leading scientist on the "No on 37" website since June, where she is quoted as being "passionately opposed to labeling." Maybe her previous board membership with Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company helped drive that passion.

(Note that Simon identifies the very same pattern of questionable citations as we have seen invoked on Wikipedia itself.) There is no reason to believe that this statement reflects an actual consensus among scientists, nor have we heard a convincing argument for why it might. groupuscule (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Third party comment - Journalistic comment article by a lawyer and objections from an NGO do not have any effect on a claim of "scientific consensus". DanHobley (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• What do you mean by this? How can one NGO's word be taken as absolute truth, and the criticism of another ignored? What about the many peer-reviewed journal articles which contradict the consensus claim? The AAAS report is a low-quality source, both by perennial Wikipedia standards and in the specific opinion of outside experts. Have you seen anyone provide a good analysis otherwise? groupuscule (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's reasonable to present those contrary sources as representing the contrary view. However, the statement that the AAAS statement is not peer-reviewed is simply not accurate. It's a summary of peer-reviewed findings, summarized by the peer-reviewers. The reason that it presents little original data is that it is a secondary source, summarizing the scientific literature. It really does represent the consensus of the scientific establishment. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

AAAS Board of Directors would be a very high quality source. An opinion piece by a lawyer speaking on the safety of GM food is not. BlackHades (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"It's a politicized statement issued by a small group of people, and ..." The AAAS is the largest scientific organisation in the world. They publishes one of the most highly respected general science journals in the world (the other being Nature). There statement represents the consensus position. Statements from an anti-GMO group are irrelevant, and I am surprised that you are quoting them and expecting us to give that any legitimacy (and they are misrepresenting the situation as you are still doing). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We didn't reach a consensus here

This discussion was dominated by people who had already seem to have formed an unshakeable opinion on the topic. Very few new people arrived to comment, no attempts were made to actually reach a consensus, and yet the discussion was closed after the minimum length of time suggested. I don't accept that a consensus was reached here, and I especially object to this conclusion being thrown around elsewhere, as though the (comparative) safety of GMO foods was now beyond dispute. The RFC should also not be a reason to reject changes to the article. (Though I would agree that the particular edit in question was not worded neutrally and requires sourcing.) groupuscule (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The correct procedures for challenging the close of an RfC are described at Wikipedia:Closure review. You are certainly free to pursue that, although I hope that you know that the fact that you disagree with the conclusion is not a valid reason to overturn a decision. Arguing about it here, on this talk page, is a waste of time. Until such time as a closure is overturned, you should be aware that edits that go against the present consensus may be regarded as disruptive, and that there is nothing wrong with citing the present consensus as a reason for an edit, as was done in the edit that you cited. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Groupuscule, as I did on your Talk page, I disagree with your summary of commentors. Restating and updating what I said there, here:

• New commentors: The Banner, Wayne, Bezet, DanHobley, JustBerry, NickCT, 2/0, Andrew327, TFD, Geremy Hebert are new or very infrequent on all GM pages
• New to this page: Spectravalor, and trypto are new to all GM articles (outside the March page where they had indeed been active).
• Relatively new: Thargor, Catrinka, you (groupuscule)
• Old-timers: me, arc de ciel, aircorn, wolfie (but infrequently), blackhades (been here a few months)

10 new voices to the GM pages, 2 new to this page, 3 relatively new voices, 5 relatively old timers. I think the RfC did its job! Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nor does that really matter, as a procedural issue. As far as I am aware, the RfC was published properly, kept open for the proper amount of time, and there was no canvassing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Relationship of Substantial Equivalence to Scientific Consensus on GE Food Safety

Mention of the importance of SE is currently absent from the lead yet its significance is detailed in multiple reliable sources. The bulk of the testing that took place prior to consensus being reached centered on SE. Currently, case by case assessment continues, and other safety testing methods exist, but, historically speaking, and in terms of the science that led to the consensus on GE food safety, SE played a significant role. To reflect this fact, the consensus statement should perhaps be properly contextualised in the lead. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Some source examples (there are reams of them):

• Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods American Medical Association (2012): "Before bioengineered foods reach the market, producers perform safety assessments to evaluate potential toxicity. The safety assessments are based on the concept of 'substantial equivalence' which involves a thorough comparison of the new transgenic crop with its conventionally bred counterpart that is generally accepted as safe based on a history of human consumption."

• Green Issues and Debates (SAGE 2011:245):"In 1992, the FDA adopted a policy whereby GE foods were presumed 'generally recognized as safe'. Similarly, the FAO and the WHO subscribed to the concept of substantial equivalence, which regards GE food products to be as safe as their conventional counterparts...Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have improved with the global consensus forwarded by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. These principles dictate a pre-market assessment, performed on a case-by-case basis, which includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects."

• Safety assessment of genetically modified food crops (2011): "Previous studies employed for assessing the safety of chemical additives used in food industry, involved testing single chemical components. But this is not feasible for testing GM foods. Therefore, an alternative approach was required for the safety assessment of GM foods. First food safety assessment report described comparative approach and has laid the basis for later safety evaluation strategies. This led to the development of the concept of substantial equivalence."

• A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010):"An overview of the main conclusions of the working groups is provided below: Safety Testing of Transgenic Foods (Working Group 1) The safety evaluation of foods derived from GM crops is carried out in a comparative manner, i.e. differences between the GM crop and the novel or differently conventionally grown crop are identified and investigated with respect to their impact on human or animal health (Concept of Substantial Equivalence, see Fig 2.). The basic idea behind this approach is that conventional foods have a long history of safe use."

• Assuring the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods: the importance of an holistic,integrative approach (2002): "The concept of SE continues to be recognised by scientific and regulatory experts as the most appropriate foundation for the assessment of the safety of foods from crops developed via biotechnology (FAO/WHO, 2000). Substantial equivalence achieves a central public health objective, which is the assurance that no undeclared or unexpected alterations in dietary nutrients, antinutrients, toxins or allergens are introduced into the food or feed supply."

• World Health Organisation Strategy on Food Safety: "The principle of "substantial equivalence" formulated by OECD in 1993 turned out to be a key element of the safety assessment procedure. This concept is used to identify similarities and differences between the GM food and a comparator with a history of safe use which subsequently guides the safety assessment process. A major purpose of the expert consultations convened by WHO/FAO was to develop recommendations and guidance for the practical application of this approach...The concept of “substantial equivalence", one of the key elements, proved to be suitable for the safety assessment of the first generation of genetically modified crops. Foods consisting of or containing GMO belong to the best analyzed foods we know. So far there are no documented reports on adverse effects on humans resulting from the consumption of a food produced by means of application of recombinant DNA techniques." Semitransgenic _talk. 17:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• You seem to have jumped from making personal attacks above to requesting an RfC with personal attacks still present. Perhaps you might try the approach of discussing your suggested edit rather than attacking everyone who disagrees? Being mention in the sources != being mentioned in the lead. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• errr..personal attacks? in this section? where exactly? An RfC is a perfectly legitimate method of resolving content disputes, not sure what your problem is with this. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but calling edits "stubborn and nonsensical resistance" is a personal attack. You have made no serious attempts to discuss your proposal and started this RfC after only minimal discussion. You've already indicated that you are synthesising the statements to the statement of consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a clearly-worded RfC. Editors not familiar with the discussions may not understand the dispute. The edit seems POV to me because it is implicitly criticizing the methodology of scientists who assume substantial equivalence (SE). If we want to include criticism of the methodology then we need to identify who has made it and the reception their criticism has received. TFD (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

not sure where you are seeing an "implicit criticism". Stating the importance of SE to the scientific method (as detailed in the sources above) can hardly be considered a criticism, it's a statement of fact. Scientific consensus did not arrive out of thin air, but the current paragraph construction seems to imply that a bunch of scientists simply sat down one day and arrived at this consensus. Some context would be nice here that's all I'm suggesting. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think this could be included in this paragraph as long as other tests are also mentioned. I think the main objection is that it reads like substantial equivelence is the only/main reason the consensus exists. FWIW I think a good addition to this paragraph would be a short (sentence) summary of the divided public opinion regarding GMO safety to put the scientific one in context. AIRcorn (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I would think the other way around. The scientific consensus should be used to put the public opinion in context. On systemic bias, also, when stating the public opinion don't forget that includes the rest of the world. Opinion in the US is only a small fraction of the world. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what way round it is as either way it equates to the same thing (i.e. giving both sides). A major reason that the controversy exists is because the public opinion does not always match the scientific opinion. We present the scientific consensus in the lead, but as it stands we do not show why this consensus needs to presented (i.e. that it many memners of the public don't agree with it). AIRcorn (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

not only do we not show why it's there, there is nothing about the role of SE, the context is absent . Semitransgenic _talk. 18:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Question What is the argument against including both of these well-sourced facts in the same sentence? And is there any scientific evidence indicating that GM products are harmful in any way? Isn't this just a question of public opinion -- which is easily manipulated by fear-mongering on the part of such groups as Greenpeace -- and the resulting political reaction? GoodeOldeboy (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

not the same sentence, the same paragraph, current argument against is WP:SYN, but it is not synthesis when the sources attest to what is stated. Also, this discussion has nothing to do with whether or not people think GM products are harmful, that's a different topic entirely. See my last comment above. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a single one of these sources mentions the scientific consensus. What you are doing is trying to say is that the regulators use 'substantial equivalence' for approval (but as far as I can see, the EU doesn't use that: "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)."), therefore the scientific consensus depends on substantial equivalence. Which is a non-sequitur, but also a synthesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

nonsense, SE played a significant role, to continue to refute this fact is to willfully ignore the history of the matter. Case by case assessment continues, other methods exist, and new methods will be required, but, the bulk of the testing that took place prior to consensus being reached centered on SE. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That just isn't what the sources say. Hence your desire for SYNTH. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? again you are incorrect. For example:

"The Society of Toxicology (SOT) is committed to protecting and enhancing human, animal, and environmental health through the sound application of the fundamental principles of the science of toxicology. It is with this goal in mind that the SOT defines here its current consensus position on the safety of foods produced through biotechnology (genetic engineering)...The available scientific evidence indicates that the potential adverse health effects arising from biotechnology-derived foods are not different in nature from those created by conventional breeding practices for plant, animal, or microbial enhancement, and are already familiar to toxicologists...We support the use of the substantial equivalence concept as part of the safety assessment of biotechnology-derived foods. This process establishes whether the new plant or animal is significantly different from comparable, nonengineered plants or animals used to produce food that is generally considered to be safe for consumers...Studies of this type have established that the level of safety to consumers of current genetically engineered foods is likely to be equivalent to that of traditional foods." Semitransgenic _talk. 20:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That makes no mention of the scientific consensus, it's about the Society of Toxicology. It also says what I have already said:"The guiding principle in the evaluation of BD foods by regulatory agencies in Europe and the U.S. is that their human and environmental safety is most effectively considered, relative to comparable products and processes currently in use. From this arises the concept of “substantial equivalence.” ... The examination of substantial equivalence, therefore, may be only the starting point of the safety assessment." You are implying that the crops are not tested, such as with mice, despite them being the “... the most extensively tested crops ever.” (AAAS) IRWolfie- (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

no such implication is made anywhere, in anything I have written. Your "argument" continues to be baseless, comparative assessment guides the process, it is more than a simple starting point, source after source clearly states how significant SE is to the science associated with GE food safety testing, and this is the very same science that is referenced when scientific consensus is discussed, to ignore this very plain correlation ridiculous. How many sources do you need?

Source: "Safety assessment is structured, step-wise, and based on a comparative approach. The substantial equivalence concept according to the principles outlined in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) consensus documents [1] encompasses a comparison of biochemical composition with a non-GE line considered to be safe."

Source: "Included in the comparison are the agronomic and morphological characteristics and the chemical composition of key nutrients and toxins or anti-nutrients present in the crop. There are several steps in this process: the characterisation of the organism (and the donor organism for transferred genes); description of the genetic modification (inserted gene, method of insertion and stability and expression of the resulting inserted gene); and the effects of the modification on the composition and morphology of the crop. On the basis of the assessment of substantial equivalence, the further toxicological assessment of the hazard from the novel food can be determined."

Source"The comparative safety assessment paradigm that is used by regulators to guide the safety assessment process is called the substantial equivalence paradigm...what the substantial equivalence paradigm actually asserts is that components that are identical between two crop varieties pose the same risk, and that any differences in risk between two varieties are restricted to components that are present in different amounts. Substantial equivalence does not require that two varieties be identical, indeed, if two varieties of any crop are identical they are not distinct varieties. Safety assessors use the substantial equivalence (or comparative assessment) paradigm as a guide to differences whose safety must be evaluated."

Source: " If there are no significant differences between the GM crop and the comparator or if there are differences that will, with reasonable certainty, not adversely affect health, the GM product is considered ‘as safe as’ its counterpart. This approach also applies to GM crops with more complex metabolic modifications, where no single parent crop might be a suitable comparator, but where single widely consumed substances, food constituents, ingredients, or other whole foods that are deemed safe under representative conditions of use may serve as comparators...the concept of substantial equivalence is widely accepted by international and national agencies as the best available guidance for the safety assessment of new GM crops...As with all scientific concepts, the concept of substantial equivalence is evolving and, together with guidelines, making its application more systematic. The assessment helps to determine whether the GM crop is ‘as safe as’ its conventional counterpart."

Source:"The overall safety evaluation is conducted under the concept known as substantial equivalence which is enshrined in all international crop biotechnology guidelines. This provides the framework for a comparative approach to identify the similarities and differences between the GM product and its comparator which has a known history of safe use. By building a detailed profile on each step in the transformation process, from parent to new crop, and by thoroughly evaluating the significance from a safety perspective, of any differences that may be detected, a very comprehensive matrix of information is constructed which enables the conclusion as to whether the GM crop, derived food or feed is as safe as its traditional counterpart. Using this approach in the evaluation of more than 50 GM crops which have been approved worldwide, the conclusion has been that foods and feeds derived from genetically modified crops are as safe and nutritious as those derived from traditional crops." Semitransgenic _talk. 19:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is trying to make a direct link between substantial equivalence and the broad scientific consensus on the safety of GM food on the market when the sources listed do not make such a direct link. Substantial equivalence is a procedure for the assessment on the safety of GM food. It is an important procedure. It is however, not the only procedure, and it is not the sole basis for the existing scientific consensus. The objection is making substantial equivalence appear as though it is the only/main reason the consensus exists, as previously mentioned by Aircorn. BlackHades (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

as stated above, case by case assessment continues, other methods exist, and new methods will be required, but, the bulk of the testing that took place prior to consensus being reached centered on SE. However, none of this is discussed in the lead. The consensus statement is not properly contextualized in the lead. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to say what the sources don't. The sources just don't say the scientific consensus relies on substantial equivalence. They just don't. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

multiple sources state that SE played a significant role in the scientific assessment of GE food safety, it is impossible to reach a scientific consensus unless there are enough studies to cite, the vast majority of those studies featured SE based methodologies. That's the fact of the matter. Semitransgenic _talk. 20:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You are making an inference and I do not agree with it. Substantial equivalence alone is not used for the consensus position. Studies of the possible effects of GMOs are also performed, it is not purely analysis of the components. It is used by health agencies to assess risk, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

you disagree, because in your opinion, there is no relationship worth commenting on; this despite the fact that we see multiple sources very explicitly commenting on the central significance of SE to the science of GE food safety testing. There is a clear relationship between SE and the question of scientific consensus, and this is indisputable, insisting otherwise is illogical. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I see no problem with including a mention of substantial equivalence in the lead as long as the SYNTH issue (being discussed in previous comments) is resolved. I think a bit more detail in the second paragraph would be useful myself. Also, it may be a good idea to read WP:RFC for advice on constructing a neutral RfC question. Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Better. :-) Still, the question really shouldn't contain arguments in favor of a position - it should be something like "Should the article include X?" - and you could split out your argument into a separate comment instead. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm about to go on wikibreak, so I just wanted to point out that if you make further changes you or someone else should probably record that somewhere on the page - that will help in the interpretation of the final result. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

thank you for your advise, I will try restructuring all of this shortly. Semitransgenic _talk. 21:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• The categories of this RfC are rather odd: "Religion and philosophy", "Economy, trade, and companies", "Politics, government, and law". From what I can see it is purely a science question, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• A new version of the broad scientific consensus paragraph in the lead for consideration. AIRcorn (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"The starting point for assessing the safety of all GM food is to evaluate its substantial equivalence to the non-modified version. Further testing is then done on a case-by-case basis. Despite concerns over potential toxicity, allergenicity or gene transfer to humans from GM food, there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food. There is no evidence to support the idea that the consumption of approved GM food has a detrimental effect on human health. Although labelling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in many countries, it is not required in the United States and no distinction between GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized."

it's an improvement on what we currently have. One other thing worth noting here is that we have a string of cites trailing the scientific consensus statement that do not explicitly mention "broad scientific consensus." Only the cites that clearly discuss this matter should be referenced here; citing just a couple that explicitly mention it is better than a long string of peripheral references. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree and mentioned something along those lines in the recent RFC. No one really disagreed and it was brought up as something that could be discussed further in the closing statement. I think the AAAS is enough on its own in the lead. I also think it probably is in the body too, but would rather concentrate on the lead first. AIRcorn (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, as there are no objections we should perhaps proceed and amend the text accordingly. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am leaving a note here in case this proposal has been missed in the ensuing edits. If there are no objections to this change I will initiate it in the next few days (unless Semitransgenic (talk · contribs) beats me to it). AIRcorn (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

POV tag on health section

Today I removed the POV tag on the Health section as I thought the issues were resolved. User:Canoe1967, who had raised the initial issues and tagged it, reverted. Canoe, would you please state what issues are outstanding? Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The recalls and other incindents were not controversial because of the allergens. The allergens are a fact and not a controversy. We could just create a new section in that would cover all the issues. The recalls, cautionary reactions, aftermath, inspections, refusals/returns, and coroporate/government errors, etc. This may be easier than spreading the material all through the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As a matter purely of procedure (in other words, I'm not talking about the merits of the content issues), I strongly recommend allowing the template to remain until editors reach consensus that it can be removed. Even in situations where it's mostly one editor who has concerns about POV, I think that the right thing to do is to let the tag stay there as long as is necessary to get to consensus, and we aren't yet at that stage. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Tags are not meant to be badges of shame and this issue has been discussed to death. There are many articles here where not every editor is going to agree on neutrality. If the consensus is against a tag then it is against the tag one editor not withstanding. There are other options to pursue if talk page consensus is not to their agreement. AIRcorn (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, can you please explain what those issues have to do with neutrality? Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Worse yet, i don't even understand what Canoe is trying to say. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

1. The article is about controversies.
2. The sections classify the controversies.
3. Being a possible allergen is not a controversy, it is just not fully tested.
4. The Starlink incidents were not controversial for the allergens but for the lead up and aftermath.
5. Thus, wrong section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for spelling that out. If I understand correctly, the controversy in this case is about the fact that Starlink corn got into the food supply, where it was not supposed to have been; the reason that it was not supposed to have been there is because, by containing the Cry9C protein, it had the potential to have caused allergic reactions in the people who ate the food. It's true that, because it turned out that no one really got sick because of the corn, the controversy resides in what happened before (how the corn got there in the first place), and after (the investigations, recall, and so forth), but the controversy was about the possibility of people getting sick from eating the corn. In a strict biochemical sense, Cry9C is an allergen, because it is possible to raise antibodies directed at it; it just turned out not to have been an allergen that caused health problems in this case.

But, that said, what would you suggest as an alternative header title? My recollection is that you have been in favor of including this subject in the Health section of the page, so is there a different subcategory of Health where you would prefer to put it? PS: I see from your comment above that you would be in favor of a dedicated subsection for this. What would you propose to call it? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Trypto, as an aside, I disagree with your statement that "In a strict biochemical sense, Cry9C is an allergen, because it is possible to raise antibodies directed at it" In a lab you can generate antibodies to any protein; doing so has nothing to do with whether the protein is an allergen (i.e. a significant number of people create antibodies against it after being exposed to it).

Canoe's objection goes back to his objection over the scope and definition of this article. We should not discuss scope here or we will never get that resolved. Canoe has not addressed the question, of why anything in the Health section is not neutral which is what the tag says. If Canoe cannot justify the tag itself, the tag should go. We can of course continue to discuss Scope under the relevant section above As there is no reason given for the tag, and no support (other than Canoe) for the presence of the tag, it should be removed. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm facepalming about that aside! You are quite correct. In what appears to have been a brain malfunction on my part, I confused allergen with antigen. Woops! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

:) darn brains.Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe does not say what section the Starlink matter should be, but if anything, he seems to be arguing that it should be in the environmental section, where we already have content about escape and mixing. Exactly where the material started out. Also, Canoe, you could, at minimum, have the decency to acknowledge that you spent a couple of weeks arguing that the Starlink material MUST be in the health section and that you have changed your mind. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that the issue is that he would like the Starlink paragraph to be given its own subsection within Health, instead of being a paragraph within the Allergens subsection. I made a BRD edit to put both Starlink and the other incidents that are in the Allergens section into a lower level subsection called Incidents, and Aircorn reverted me on WP:UNDUE grounds. I'm actually rather sympathetic to Aircorn's argument that highlighting the Starlink material in that way is UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• How long are we going to play this game. We have a paragraph dedicated to this incident and it is mentioned and linked under two separate sections. This is more space devoted to a single issue other than Seralini (which is arguably a few different issues). AIRcorn (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I know that some editors consider tags to be badges of shame, but I see them merely as indicating that someone still wants to discuss something. I'm sympathetic, however, to your impatience. I suggest giving Canoe an opportunity to reply to the questions to him here, and then evaluating whether we have consensus to remove the tag. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have submitted the article to Wikipedia:Peer review to get more input on the scope and format etc. Input from others should help resolve the multiple issues with scope, format, Taco Bell placement, and pro-GMO POV spam etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Seeking more opinions from more editors is always a helpful approach. The review page is at: Wikipedia:Peer review/Genetically modified food controversies/archive1. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving "protests" section to public perception section

Today Canoe moved the protests section, into the public perception. I do not agree with this, and reverted it. Canoe reverted, and did not open a Talk section. So I am. Canoe would you please explain why the protests section should be in the Public perception section? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The second sentence in the public perception section states "There is widespread concern within the public about the risks of biotechnology,..." so that is where it belongs.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This move seems reasonable to me. After a fashion, protests represent one component of public views (albeit the most active and motivated component). But I'll also observe that it's never a good sign when an edit summary of a revert edit includes a complaint about edit warring: [2]. In other words, telling someone else not to edit war rings false when it is said while reverting them. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with moving protests to the Public Perception section. Protestors - people who for example destroy test plots - are trying to move and shape public perception; they are not part of the public perception. If we include protests here, we should also include in this section a description of the efforts by supporters of GM to shape public perception and policy. I don't think that is wise - having this section focus on perceptions by the broad public, as described by polling and sociological studies, makes sense. Leave lobbyists on both sides in separate sections. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me suggest this. First, leave the Protests section in the position where it is on the page, higher up than it used to be, because this page is about controversies. But change it to its own section, instead of a subsection of the Public perceptions section, because it's different than the general public perception in the ways that Jytdog just described. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)