Talk:Genetically modified crops/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

General agreement

In the lead it currently says general agreement. This is actually a broader designation than scientific agreement or even scientific consensus. Given the public opposition to GM crops I would be surprised if this was accurate, and it is definitely not supported by the sources. Maybe someone not in danger of 1RR would like to fix it? Pinging @Prokaryotes: on they off chance this is what the intended. AIRcorn (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

My main involvement here is because of the word consensus, i changed back to what i believe is a past version. The best way to resolve this dilemma is probably to stick with quotes, like from AAAS. Additional i would add the quote from the WHO about case per case basis. prokaryotes (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Especially since we have sources using language like "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat."[1] and "Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). . ."[2]. The best thing to do at this point is stick with the scientific consensus language as the sources describe and cite the supporting sources that don't inherently say consensus, but reach the same conclusion for further explanation on the background. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice the first cite to the Genetics website is from a single author, who was criticized for a flawed assessment by the Union of Concerned Scientist. However, the second reference (FAO) states in the main conclusion (introduction part), "There is a substantial degree of consensus within the scientific community on many of the major safety questions concerning transgenic products, but scientists disagree on some issues, and gaps in knowledge remain." prokaryotes (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Coincidentally there is an article about recent discussions on the food safety consensus, we discuss here, http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986952/why_is_cornell_university_hosting_a_gmo_propaganda_campaign.html prokaryotes (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think everyone is missing my point. This is not about the word consensus, but the lack of the word scientific. Currently the article is misleading as it says there is general agreement. Scientifically yes. Publicly, politically and in the media not so much. AIRcorn (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggested above to use direct quotes, such as from AAAS/WHO. This would resolve the entire debate here. prokaryotes (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If it is found to be synth then something along those lines will need to be done as agreement and consensus or just as bad as each other in regards to OR. AIRcorn (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

^In the above edit, your edit note says, "Guess we have general agreement then". I do not believe that is what your above post actually says, and I do not believe it is true. Can you please explain? I do not agree to this plan, but am open to further discussion of proposed changes along those lines that are NPOV representations of what is in WP:RS of safety of GM food. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is moot now, but the whole reason I opened this section was because the article read "There is general agreement that food on the market..."[3] instead of saying general scientific agreement. The addition of scientific changes the meaning quite a bit. I can't have explained it well enough since the thread has gone on a tangent. Anyway, my comment was me giving up on changing the wording and accepting that we have general agreement (as in the words "general agreement") in the article and then giving into the new direction the thread is going, by responding to Prokaryotes (and generally agreeing with them). AIRcorn (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, per WP:MEDRS, we should be using the best secondary sources such as peer reviewed journal articles, ideally reviews (from the relevant subject field), such as Domingo(2011)and Krimsky(2015), right?

--David Tornheim (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS says you use the best secondary sources, not poor fringe sources that conflict with the scientific consensus on GMOs. It would violate NPOV to use them in this fashion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

We can also cite the WHO, on residues, and not everything is MEDRS in these regards (contamination, horizontal gene transfer, results unclear) - cancer glyphosate and their safety statements. A bit ironic, the past version you defended so passionate actually included several none MEDRS compatible sources. prokaryotes (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, David, for drawing my attention to the Krimsky paper, because it cites another paper that I just posted about at NORN. It is: [4]. And as I said at the noticeboard, it talks directly about "scientific consensus". As for "general agreement" it's WP:WEASEL words. It actually falsely implies that politicians, advocates, etc. agree, which they don't, as other editors just pointed out. "Scientific consensus" is actually a narrower way of saying it. And as for any previous "gentleman's agreement", such as it may have been, consensus can change. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that we maybe now have a more peaceful editing environment and a lead section that editors may be more comfortable with, but I do want to make it clear that we now have a good source for saying "scientific consensus" as opposed to "scientific agreement". I still think that "agreement" is needlessly vague, even though putting "scientific" in front of it fixes the most serious problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Recent edits Thanks Aircorn, for your recent edits, the current version is good. Maybe we can trim the FAO (2004) and single author study (Genetics journal) references too. prokaryotes (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, I made those edits because I never meant to change the lead in the first place and I was fixing a mistake I made. They should in no way be taken to mean I support "agreement" over "consensus". AIRcorn (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as there hasn't been consensus for awhile now (everyone is across the board) on this new change of using agreement instead of consensus, I've gone ahead and restored it back to the status quo. Instead of edit warring it in, we need to gain consensus for a new change once it has been disputed as encouraged at ArbCom. I also added in a few more sources that exactly use consensus language. Not that we need sources that explicitly say consensus as there are other ways to say it, but that's a bit of a larger undertaking to document all the positions that represent the mainstream on this. If anyone has preferences on source order, I'm open to switching things around. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

On a quick look, I think that you may have gotten the quotation in the cite for [5] wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm double checking the quotes. I noticed one other prior that got mixed into another in the list, but I thought I got them all. One sec. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the quote I pulled was from the conclusions section. Maybe you were looking at the similar wording in the abstract? I went with the conclusions one because it seemed more concise, but I don't have a strong preference on either if you think the abstract does a better job. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

See below, please. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Thats not the status quo version from 23 Jan, before that Jytdog himself changed it back to broad agreement i think. The only involved authors who support your edit is you and fish. prokaryotes (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say that I supported it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you? prokaryotes (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I prefer discussion first, and I explain what I support just below. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even though it's been practically two days since my last edit, I self-reverted the consensus language temporarily to avoid even the spectre of edit warring. As it stands though, we haven't gained consensus for the agreement language. It was inserted while the makings of the ArbCom case were underway, so I cannot really call the agreement language status quo as we're still cleaning up a lot of things happening during the process of the case, but that's largely moot point now. In the current day, we're sitting in a situation where scientific consensus is appropriate, and that's all that matters at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Another suggestion

At the time that I write this (but with an (edit conflict) with what KingofAces apparently just did), the contested sentence in the lead says/said:

There is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.^{[5][6][7][8][9][10]}

I suggest that we change it to:

There is a scientific consensus^[1] that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,^{[2][3][4][5][6]} but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.^[7]

Here, ^[1] would be this source, to source the phrase "scientific consensus", ^[2]—[6] would be the multiple sources we have been using for some time, and ^[7] would be the WHO source, to source the case-by-case language (the actual numbering to be according to where the sentence actually will be, of course). I believe that this would be an improvement, because the more precise phrase about consensus would be restored, but with a source, and the other sources would be arranged so that it is clear just what the WHO source is sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The WHO has more authority then studies from small author teams, the WHO states that no general conclusion can be drawn about the safety of GMOs. The Tand source is unclear, when it states in the lede that consensus has grown in recent years. Besides that the page wants 44€ from me. A source about the scientific consensus should not hide behind a paywall. prokaryotes (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Here again [6] is the source about consensus. The relevant language is right there in the abstract (KingofAces also please note), so you don't need to pay for full text access. And the Wikipedia policy at WP:PAYWALL says that a source cannot be rejected for that reason. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This looks again like OR, just now with some new papers in the mix and more papers. Most of it is irrelevant (single author conclusions), or the FAO is old for instance. I see that King has backtracked now by reverting back from consensus, prokaryotes (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As I begin to reach the limits of my patience, I will reproduce here what I posted earlier at WP:NORN:

*Source. OK folks, I've done some searching and (thanks to a citation in the Krimsky critique) I have found a reliable source from 2014 that says there is a "scientific consensus", in those exact words. It's a review article, reviewing the literature about GM food crops, with a particular view to summarizing both support and scientific concerns about GMOs, thus, a secondary source. It is in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, thus, a reliable source. All of the authors hold academic appointments or government research appointments in Europe, and appear to be unaffiliated with biotech companies, so no apparent author "COI". Here is a link: [7]. And here is a verbatim quote from the abstract: "We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide. The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense. An improvement in the efficacy of scientific communication could have a significant impact on the future of agricultural GE." On the one hand, there is still a debate (no kidding!), at least partly attributable to communication problems, but nonetheless there is a matured scientific consensus that no significant hazards have been detected so far. No SYNTH, no matter how one defines SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Look again, before you claim it "looks like OR". And KofA, there is the full quote. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You pick a quote from the abstract, then it explains how the consensus has grown. What does this mean? Has it grown from 1 to 2 %? Besides this it contradicts more authoritative sources, and is old. In 2015 glyphosate was identified re carcinogen, and thus GMO crops with residue pose a potential health threat. Newer findings and more authority trumps your efforts of cherry picking an abstract, from a study you did not even read. prokaryotes (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

My jaw drops in amazement at what you are saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

EPA, WHO, these are the authorities editor Tryptofish. prokaryotes (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

To claim the WHO, etc. contradict the scientific consensus is itself original research. As explained before in RfCs, etc. the case-by-case language goes hand in hand with the idea that the consensus is that the being a GMO doesn't inherently increase safety risk and currently marketed crops are safe. Those are two different clauses within the overall consensus that should not be conflated as opposing. One of the sources I compiled recently went over this really well explaining the first step being that biotech isn't inherently riskier than conventional. That means that while there is some risk to crops in general, it's not different between the two. To evaluate the safety of an individual crop (regardless of GMO vs non) you need to look at that on a case-by-case basis. Those are not conflicting ideas. I'm running short on time for this tonight, but I'll see if I can find which source it was again soon. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And the abstract states "not directly detected", but indirectly it could, and as i wrote above, indeed it has been found that glyphosate is indirectly a health problem. The abstract even acknowledges that there is still a debate. prokaryotes (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If the sources considered indirect effects a health hazard, they would do so. They don't give weight to the idea so that shuts that personal interpretation down. MEDRS is clear: "Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." Authors will also mention directly because account for confounding factors (e.g., herbicides get sprayed on conventional crops too, even resistant non-GMO crops). Herbicide tolerance isn't something unique to GMOs either.

On the "debate", Nicolia is clear that their meaning is not intended as you are trying to portray it. We can't cherry-pick single sentences to change the meaning, The abstract sentences in tandem show they are discussing that the scientific consensus exists, but the public debate needs better communication from the science realm to get the point across on the consensus. That's not exactly news. That context is scattered throughout the main paper itself where it is never claimed there is current legitimate scientific debate, but that scientists need to do a better job addressing the disparity between the consensus the science has shown and the public's often opposite misconceptions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposed change. I've already expressed my reservations about where the case-by-case language goes, but that's something to tackle after the consensus language is in place as it's more nuance than anything. FYI, Trypto, I have university access to most journals, including this article, so I can provided limited quotes from the main paper if needed. I can change the current quote to the abstract version though as I see that it's cover a bit more info than the part I quoted. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I am just about to log out for the night. I would find it very helpful if you would look through that paper and see if you can respond to what Prokaryotes is saying. If I am wrong about what the source is saying, by all means let's correct me, but I kind of think that I am understanding it correctly. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• New study linked above, https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf The single author conclusion is basically that there is a consensus on evaluation and on a PCR method. This paper is not about a general scientific consensus that GMO crops on the market are safe for consumption. The WHO states that this assessment must be made on a case per case basis. Statements about a scientific consensus must come from the authorities in the field, and should be reflected in the related literature. But for reasons like restricted access or no access at all, or gag orders, many studies can not be evaluated independently, transparent. Also with the last edit by Kingofaces there are now 11 references, see WP:OVERCITE (Overcite is an indicator for edit warring) - prokaryotes (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not that it actually matters in assessing source quality, but it's also a multi-author review. The paper covers a lot more than just PCR (seriously, that's just the last section of the results) with the whole theme of the paper being safety both on the use and consumption of GM crops. Considering that the WHO is in general agreement with these sources as pointed out multiple times, there don't appear to be any issues at this point with the source. As for overcite, it's citations for a scientific consensus statement that editors have simultaneously complained about there not being enough sources that establish a consensus followed by claims of overcite like you did. In a situation like this, the best thing is to be thorough rather than skimp on citations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a fan of long strings of citations. Apart from raising suggestions of synth (which we really want to avoid) they are also aesthetically unappealing to the reader. If they are all needed I would prefer them to be in a note. AIRcorn (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel that way too, and I don't think that they are needed, so I don't think we need a note. It seems like there is pretty clear consensus to shorten the string. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have always felt the consensus statement needed better context. From a readers point of view it always felt a little strange jumping straight into saying that GM food is as healthy as conventional food. We don't say that the scientific consensus is that water is wet or the sky is blue. I feel it needs to be framed better with the reasons why such a statement needs to be made. Also not a big fan of the "but". The WHO statement is not contradictory to the other statements. Anyway my take on the proposed sentence.

While public opinion on the safety of genetically modified food is mixed, there is a scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food and that it should be tested on a case-by-case basis.

A survey or other source can be used for the public opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The addition is good, but I'd flip the order around as a consensus statement should be right up front. Basically Trypto's version + yours:

There is a scientific consensus^[1] that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,^{[2][3][4][5][6]} but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.^[7] Public opinion on the safety of genetically modified food is mixed.

I think it's better to break up ideas a bit into separate sentences, but obviously have them next to each other since they are related. A few of the reviews on consensus already talk about public opinion, so we should be able to use those sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I would agree to Aircorns suggestion above, when we can add behind it the most noteworthy critics of the consensus, i.e. - broad example:

However, the Union of the Concerned Scientists, NameB, NameC, NameD point out that there are no standard safety tests for GMOs, that GMOs can contaminate the natural environment, etc .and that pesticide residues such as Glyphosate pose a health threat. prokaryotes (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

We can't be creating even more undue weight for the fringe point of view. We already give sufficient mention under WP:FRINGE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

When you have the England Journal of Medicine publish about food labeling and Glyphosate, you cant really say that its a fringe view. Nine out of ten Americans demand GMO labeling. Again above was an example, and i would support Aircorns version. Where is your ability to reach a consensus, does it exist? prokaryotes (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As a part of WP:CONSENSUS, we follow policies and guidelines such as WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and base edits on them. That's why a lot of things you want won't get traction if we're talking consensus when it's furthering a fringe view. The consensus in scientific sources is that food labeling is unjustified and contradictory to the science, not to mention that the public also has poor literacy in this topic. That's somewhat off topic in this conversation because we aren't discussing labeling. We're instead focusing on the consensus statement right now without creating undue weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about GMO crops, and this article is not only based on US fringe views, in many countries GMO labelling is a reality, and this article discusses labelling and issues i mentioned. The lede should summarise a topic, hence we should add these critical points behind the statement. According to your new favorite source link above, there is a debate, and these points would reflect that. prokaryotes (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, and we already mention that kind of stuff in accordance with WP:FRINGE (whether it's in the US or not). For now though, we're discussing the consensus statement in this section, not labeling. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you read the lede before you comment again, and my suggestion. prokaryotes (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A minority view is not a 'fringe' view. The consensus on safety does not suddenly push all discussion of labeling into fringe territory. There are a number of arguments for labeling which do not presume that GMOs are unsafe for consumption.Dialectric (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

KingofAces, I just tagged the Nicolia source with respect to the quotation, because I am concerned that it might not be accurate. And I would very much like it if you could explain clearly here just what that source, the full text, says specifically about "scientific consensus". Also, in all these discussions about the sentence, what I have been saying has been in terms of there being just five sources in the sequence 2–6 (numbered as in the drafts above). You added more sources, and I think that it is excessive and unnecessary, so I would prefer to go back to the lesser number of sources.

Let me suggest something that is a bit "triangulated" between Aircorn's version and KingofAce's version:

Public opinion on the safety of genetically modified food is mixed. However, there is a scientific consensus^[1] that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,^{[2][3][4][5][6]} but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.^[7]

I think that may be a way to get editors to feel like everyone concedes a little and gets a little. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

WHO GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. Individual 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.

We probably have to quote the highest authority in the debate. Regarding the part about public opinion, i wouldn't agree that its mixed, considering 9 out of 10 Americans want GMO labels.prokaryotes (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess I should have said that at least some editors would see my suggestion as a compromise. Highest authority? Well, you have just seriously misquoted that highest authority. You mashed together sentences that are not put together that way in the source itself. And did you see that I said that I would like to cut back on what you correctly called citation overkill? But I would have no objection to: "Public opinion on the safety of genetically modified food is mixed largely negative." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, the PO part you just mentioned would be fine, but it should go after the first part. Regarding authority, what do you suggest is the highest authority? Alternatively, we cite different statements like here Scientific opinion on climate change, instead of constructing something. Yes, i would also agree to cite the mentioned WHO part 1:1. prokaryotes (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeing that my attempt to "triangulate" went over like a lead balloon, I would go back to:

There is a scientific consensus^[1] that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,^{[2][3][4][5][6]} but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.^[7] Public opinion on the safety of genetically modified food is largely negative.

KingofAces and Aircorn, can you go along with that? And KingofAces, again, please see my comments about sources, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Depends on the source for the public opinion. The most recent one I looked at for a related issue says:

A majority of the general public (57%) says that genetically modified (GM) foods are generally unsafe to eat, while 37% says such foods are safe[8]

That is a year old and only covers America. It is probably fair to say "largely negative" or something similar using that source. Maybe something could be added to the sentence on the public opinion at the end of to emphaise European public views as our focus on the US is often brought up. Maybe:

Public opinion on the safety of genetically modified food is largely negative, with Europe showing the most doubt.

Don't like my wording and again it will depend on the source. AIRcorn (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I think those are good points. The lack of a source was on my mind, too. Maybe it requires more than one sentence. But my primary concern was the first sentence, the one about science, rather than the public. We started discussing public opinion because you brought it up. I'd be very happy if we could at least get the first sentence settled soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This is my general thinking too. I think it's better to stop discussion on public opinion for the time being in this section at least and deal with it in a different talk section. We should just focus on the scientific consensus clause for now, otherwise we can risk derailing the focus on a given piece of content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

To be fair in my original proposal it was part of the sentence. The scientific consensus and public opinion are linked and the divide is a major part of what makes this area so contentious. I can go along with the first sentence though. AIRcorn (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm good with the first sentence. Per my above comment, I'd rather focus this piece first and deal with the public perception, sources for it, etc. afterwards. We don't need to deal with both at once. As for your question on Nicholia, that quote was copy and pasted directly from the second paragraph of the conclusions. As mentioned before though, I don't have a preference on whether we should quote the conclusions paragraph or the abstract. I'm happy to replace the language if you have a specific preference. Let me know if I missed anything else you asked about. I'm just catching up and on limited time tonight, but I want to make sure I don't miss something. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Talk about burying the lead, though! So the quote on the page from Nicholia is correct. It is a very direct statement about "scientific consensus", as I just pointed out at WP:NORN. This is no small thing, given all the discussions among editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's my shot:

The major scientific organizations have stated that the current foods derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than those from traditionally cross-bred crops.^[1] They generally recommend that future GM crops be tested on a case-by-case basis.^[2]

The single cite for the 1st sentence contains the merged sources from the current conga line. I left out the public stuff, because we don't have good sourcing on a general view of the public. We have sources for individual geographies. It's an interesting topic, that I would say is worth a section in the text. Once we get that sorted, we can talk about how to summarize it. Lfstevens (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Lfstevens statement. (only would strike the word future, since tests vary in timing) prokaryotes (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe they're proposing to test current crops, are they? Lfstevens (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What i mean is that crops could be considered tested in the USA, and considered safe in the USA, are untested in the EU, or still in evaluation. This is not entirely clear from "future GM crops". Future GM crosp coudl also refer to GM crops which are not yet on the market at all.prokaryotes (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that Europe isn't engaged in safety testing of GM crops that are approved in the US ("on the market"). They are under "evaluation", which is a different thing. Please correct me. Also, the other proposals do not indicate to what geography "currently marketed" applies? Anywhere? Just the US? Lfstevens (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That removes the scientific consensus language, so I don't think we're going to get consensus without it according to the sources. There's a difference between saying just major scientific organizations and scientific consensus, so we'd be downplaying the sources by just saying major organizations. Mutagenesis is also considered a traditional breeding method, so there's more than just cross-breeding. While a decent attempt, Tryptofish's version of the first sentence seems to do the best job of describing the situation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The consensus claim rests on the support by the bodies, right? If you agree, then isn't this wording more concrete? What exactly is the difference (beyond the words themselves)? I.e., how is this "downplaying"? Added "mutagenic" as you imply. Lfstevens (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying major organizations agree and saying there is a scientific consensus. Just saying major organizations leaves it open that there may be other major organizations that have opposing views that are considered legitimate by the scientific community. Consensus means the scientific community as whole agrees. Major organizations putting out statements is something that happens just prior, and scientific consensus also implies major organizations agree. Consensus is the more concise term in this instance, plus, it's the terminology sources use.

Also, I mentioned mutagenesis not to add it, but because the language used in sources is either conventional food or traditional breeding methods. That way, we are being inclusive of traditional breeding methods without having the list them all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Are there such other organizations? Anticipating that there are none, I made it "The major scientific"... Lfstevens (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason not to use the appropriate term scientific consensus here. Scientific consensus is the agreement of the scientific community on an issue in the summation of statements by organizations, the state of the literature, conferences, etc. It's more than just saying organizations say so. In the end, the sources say scientific consensus as opposed to less strong phrasing, so we need reflect scientific consensus when using those sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I thank Lfstevens for the suggestion, and we can use as many fresh eyes as possible. But I'm inclined to oppose that version. It is problematic to frame this in terms of organizations only. Just because we cite sources from organizations, because that's best practice for sourcing on Wikipedia, we should not confound that with meaning that the view is limited to organizations. And the case-by-case testing is largely sourced to the WHO, so we gain nothing by making that more vague. I think that the placement of the superscript citations, within the sentence, is important here, for the sake of precision. Dropping the public opinion content for the time being, I still would like to go with:

There is a scientific consensus^[1] that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,^{[2][3][4][5][6]} but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.^[7]

--Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What other evidence of consensus is there beyond the org statements? I also don't see the "weakness" in "the major organizations state". Aren't we parsing the words pretty closely here? Is this a distinction that readers will notice/understand? "Consensus" has inflamed this discussion for YEARS. That's the only reason I'm proposing something else. Lfstevens (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. We have crossed lines here, sorry. The reason I just got huffy with KofA for "burying the lead" is that the source that I want cited right after the words "scientific consensus" says explicitly that there is a scientific consensus, thus eliminating all this time when editors have been arguing over SYNTH: "We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops." --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Break, first sentence

Ok, so we have draft text hashed out for the first sentence, so here it is with actual sources so we are clear on that (from the citations section below):

There is a scientific consensus^{[1][2][3][4][5]} that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,^[6][7][8] but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.^[9][10]

Consensus sources

1. Nicolia: "We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops."[9]
2. Ronald: "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010)."[10]
3. Bett: "Empirical evidence shows the high potential of the technology, and there is now a scientific consensus that the currently available transgenic crops and the derived foods are safe for consumption (FAO, 2004)."[11]
4. Paarlberg: "There is a scientific consensus, even in Europe, that the GMO foods and crops currently on the market have brought no documented new risks either to human health or to the environment."[12]
5. Amman: "The broad scientific consensus was clear and compelling: ‘no conceptual distinction exists between genetic modification of plants and microorganisms by classical methods or by molecular methods that modify DNA and transfer genes' . . ."[13]
   
   Implicit on consensus
6. AAAS: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.” 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. [14][15]
7. AMA: "Federal regulatory oversight of agricultural biotechnology should continue to be science-based and guided by the characteristics of the plant, its intended use, and the environment into which it is to be introduced, not by the method used to produce it, in order to facilitate comprehensive, efficient regulatory review of new genetically modified crops and foods."[16]
8. European Commission: "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 no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." [17]
   
   WHO/FAO on consensus and case-by-case
9. WHO: "Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual 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. . .GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved."[18]
10. FAO: "Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU)."[19]

First, I purposely moved the FAO source back because it directly says the WHO's comments are in line with the scientific consensus, and goes into more detail on how individual foods as GMOs in general can be considered no different in risk to conventional, but makes the disclaimer that no crop (GMO or conventional) can be considered risk-free. That basically qualifies how the case-by-case language is intended instead of editors creating personal interpretations that the WHO contradicts the consensus statement. I'll also note Ronald outlines some of this idea too, specifically mentioning later on that that in the context of the U.S. crops as assessed on a case-by-case basis. Everything seems nicely contained and more or less self referencing other parts of the sentence without us having to do anything even close to WP:SYNTH. Implicit sources use the same language that shows agreement with the safety statements (i.e., no difference in risk), but do not explicitly say consensus, so they are later in the sentence for more explanation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with this, but I'd like to see a better phrase than "on the market", because there are many markets that reflect local differences of public opinion. FAO says "currently available". WHO says "international market". I think the latter is the way to go. Lfstevens (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It's the language we've been using for a long time now both during this drafting as well before, but on the market refers to everything on the market regardless of different localities. The overviews often cover all GM crops to date whether it's the Bt or HT crops, papaya, etc. and each of those have different markets. If one isn't marketed in a particular area, that doesn't alter the meaning from a safety standpoint. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the greater detail about sources, especially where there are links to full text instead of just to abstracts, and I need to request a bit of time for me to really look at this for myself. Two points that are on my mind right now: I think it might be best, in the interests of consensus and compromise, to leave out sources where there are significant concerns about authors having industry connections, and I think we need to take a close look at the language that we will use, with respect to whether the consensus really only applies to foods and crops already on the market, and not prospectively to the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, although I don't believe we have any with legitimate concerns with respect to industry at this time. Let me know if you find any new details though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been giving very careful thought to this, as well as to the parallel discussion happening at WP:NORN, and I also went back and re-read the 2015 RfC before making the comments I make now. Although I still support something approximately like the version that KingofAces carefully lays out just above, there are a few things that I can no longer support. I'm going to spell out some source changes, but first I want to state some more basic conceptual concerns about the text.

I cannot in good faith go along with "that food on the market derived from GM crops poses". We earlier discussed issues about verb tense, and I understand what editors said then, but I simply do not see the sources as fundamentally supporting language that is forward-looking, especially given that "case-by-case" is well-sourced. So I really want to say "food currently on the market" instead (adding the word "currently"). I think that's better than changing the verb tense, and it is more precise than if we leave out "currently". I oppose language that does not say that.

Also, I am convinced that we must also cite two of the sources that dispute the existence of a scientific consensus, and I think we can do that by way of saying "(but see also)"

I'll explain my thinking on sources more below, but I think in general that we can adequately source this sentence in the lead without needing to cite authors who have been questioned by some editors on the basis of having industry ties that might include financial interests. On the other hand, I do not automatically exclude a source because the author is known to have an opinion. In doing this, I am leaving out some sources that I actually do consider to be appropriate to cite, but I don't think that we have to cite them just because we can, and I am making a good-faith effort to reach out to the editors who disagree with me, something that I hope they will reciprocate in kind.

So here is my proposed sentence, with citations to be explained after:

There is a scientific consensus^[1][2] (but see also ^[3][4]) that food currently on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,^{[5][6][7][8][9]} but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.^[10]

consensus sources

1. Nicolia: "We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.

   The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns." [20] (Same as above, except adding a second part to the quote.)

2. Ronald: "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010)." [21] (Same as above. But omitting Bett, who is just citing the FAO source, Paarlberg, who may perhaps have a bias based on financial interest, and Amman, who is not directly talking about food; the concept that the plants are chemically the same implies that the food is the same, but he does not say that directly. We should probably cite these sources lower on the page, but not here.)
   
   but see also
3. Domingo: "In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited." [22]
4. Krimsky: "I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story." [23]
   
   no greater risk
5. AAAS: "The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "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." 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." [24][25] (Same, just fixing some errors in the quote.)
6. European Commission: [26] (Omit quote: it's the same as in AAAS.)
7. AMA: "A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts." [27] (Same source, different quote.)
8. Library of Congress: "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, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs." [28] (I'm adding this new, after seeing it suggested in talk by other editors. It's a high quality independent source that clarifies what scientists say versus what backgrounds critics come from.)
9. FAO: "Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU)." [29] (I moved this here without changing it. I don't think we need to show how the FAO and the WHO agree, and it wasn't apparent from the citation format above. On the other hand, the FAO does not say "case-by-case" verbatim whereas the WHO does.)
   
   case-by-case
10. WHO: "Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual 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. . .GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved." [30] (Same.)

I could also see putting the "but see also" citations into a note. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The Italian meta analysis by Nicolia et al. states, ". The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense"

For a consensus you require at least several reviews and authority statements, and Nicolia does not rule out hazards (directly and indirectly). As i mentioned before, i have no objection to quote the study, but for a general consensus statement it lacks authority. prokaryotes (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ronald 2011, is a bad source, since the study referenced by this single author includes opinion articles from the mainstream media. Additional the author retracted two studies in 2013. The source is not reliable enough to be used as a consensus forming statement.prokaryotes (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

About Nicolia, there is a reason why I expanded the quote from what KingofAces had proposed, and you can see what that debate actually is. About Ronald, she is nonetheless a scientific expert. I could elaborate more, but I honestly do not expect to come up with anything that will get unanimous editor support, so I'm fine with editors proposing other versions for consideration. And that is what I suggest that you do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I support LStevens, and Aircorn proposals above (see my support replies). And i provided my own suggestion as well. And i support direct quotes of the major studies. prokaryotes (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Something else that I need to point out. Partly in the context of WP:BLP and partly in the context of WP:NPOV, I want to point out about Pamela Ronald, that per the page about her: Retraction watch, a website that shines light on problems with papers and educates and celebrates research ethics and good practices stated, "that this was a case of scientists doing the right thing". [31] --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

We're going a bit backwards now with this. Scientific consensus is something enshrined in NPOV under WP:PSCI. We need to be really careful not to give fringe theories undue weight. If a study is going to be mentioned that tries to contradict the consensus, it needs to be dealt with in terms of WP:FRINGE. There's no way around that even if some editors may not like that. The best thing to do for mentioning the studies is to deal with them later in a paragraph rather than keep them in the same sentence. Over at climate change, we don't include the naysayers in the consensus statement in a similar manner. Also, Nicholia makes no mention of the claims made by Domingo even though they cite part of their work. That is an indication that the parts taken seriously in Domingo's study does not conflict with the consensus according to more recent sources.

If you haven't seen it yet, give this new review a read by Panchin in the same journal as Nicholia. Krimsky's comments in his review are mostly just complaining that Seralini got called out for poor science, but makes allusions to 26 studies showing harm to claim no consensus. He barely makes a start at actually trying to demonstrate no consensus in the validity of those studies with little to no critique that other sources like Nicholia actually do. In Panchin however, they completely undercut Krimsky's claims that there are negative health studies conflicting with the consensus by showing there actually is no evidence of harm because a lot of these studies forgot some basic statistical methods. We could get into other reasons for excluding Krimsky, but you've covered that a bit in previous discussion.

On tense, I'm not picky about that, but we need to be wary about WP:CRYSTAL in implying here that the consensus may not apply someday. Ignore the forward thinking safety assessment I mentioned earlier for now. These products are considered safe or not riskier than conventional counterparts. The sources use present tense. If the scientific consensus changes, we're going to hear about it from more reliable sources than individual fringe publications. We don't really need to hedge our bets because science can change it's thinking. That's just a bridge to cross if it comes to it. We deal with indefinite tenses in science a bit because the current understanding is indefinite until something new comes to change it if that helps. I'm open to seeing some proposed wording though, but most versions I can think of can also make it seem like the consensus was in the past to readers, so I'm iffy on doing something different with tense right now.

As for sources, I think we should include at least a few more. There were no legitimate issues with Bett or Ammann as I recall. If we want to drop those, we especially shouldn't be trying to include Krimsky or Domingo. That could be a more appropriate compromise in terms of weight even if that is a bit unbalanced by taking away sources on the consensus. As for Paarlberg, I can see dropping that to reduce drama from those who'd wish to engage in original research to claim there's a conflict of interest; we should keep in mind for the purposes of assessing weight that no such COI has been established and that advising industry is part of the job description for professors. If we want to apply some of the similar arguments that have been made against the consensus sources (something about a political scientist comes to mind), we can exclude Domingo and Krimsky without any issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the Panchin source, [32]. I enthusiastically agree that it should also be cited in the sentence.

But what I'm seeing here is Prokaryotes objecting on one basis, and KingofAces objecting for what are largely the opposite reasons. Prokaryotes argues for fewer of the sources that KingofAces would like more of, and vice-versa. It is going to be impossible to satisfy everyone fully, so I strongly recommend leaving everyone a little satisfied and a little unsatisfied. I also want to wait for more editors to comment.

I'm fine with the possibility of having three or four competing versions under consideration, and subjecting them all to community evaluation via an ArbCom-defined RfC similar to the one that one can find via Talk:Jerusalem. So I suggest that editors who have objections to my suggestion come up with specific draft versions instead.

For some of the other points raised by KofA, I would object to using Domingo or Krimsky to reject the language about "scientific consensus", and I'm also open to putting them into a note instead of saying "but see also" in the main text. But I cannot support omitting them entirely, for reasons of NPOV, so please do not expect me to support such a version. Citing them does not mean that they are correct, and saying that there is a scientific consensus (not some weasel words about agreement) clearly relegates them to a dissent position. (No one needs to convince me why I should disagree with Krimsky, personally.) As for CRYSTAL, we cannot predict that the consensus won't change, either, and that's beside the point. The WHO says what they say, and that's the mainstream, and it requires us to specify "currently on the market". Again, this is something where I will not support omitting "currently". I've given my reasoning about Bett and Amman, and I don't need to repeat it. You just have to decide how much or little you are willing to compromise. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that adding "currently" or equivalent language could be a useful clarification. I'd prefer using a note instead of "(but see also^[1][2])," both for style reasons and because it still feels a bit like a false balance that encourages readers to doubt the preceding statement. I'd probably also be fine with a separate sentence in which the dissent is placed in context, e.g. by citing Panchin. Sunrise (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sunrise, thank you very much. That's very helpful. Given your comment as well as what KofA said, I agree that it should be a note (equivalent to citation 3 in the numbering above, with AAAS becoming 4, and so on). And, as I said earlier, I agree with adding the Panchin source in this sentence (however else we might also use that source in an additional sentence or sentences). Before I compile that, let me ask: @Kingofaces43: are you comfortable working with this, or would you prefer to have a separate proposal (per what you posted above my proposal)? And @Aircorn: @Lfstevens: how do you feel about these ideas? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not how I'd put it, but all my suggestions have been rejected. I can live with this. Lfstevens (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

In my case, I didn't mean to reject anything you said. I think it's just more a problem with tl;dr, sorry. Looking back, what I found was what you said about "on the market". I would be fine with changing "food currently on the market" to "currently available food". That still satisfies my requirement about "currently", and I don't feel strongly about the rest. How would editors feel about that? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement with Sunrise, and I think we're getting close. Having a later sentence instead of a note (though better than see also) is probably most in line with WP:PSCI here from my take. Looking at the spirit of what that policy says, we generally shouldn't include ideas counter to the consensus within that specific piece of content, but deal with that later in the paragraph. It doesn't need to come directly after the consensus statement, but we could have something to the effect of, "Some studies have claimed there are instances of harm,[Krimsky] but review of these studies show the statistical methodology used in them cannot support these claims.[Panchin]" We shouldn't be trying to satisfy opposing sides here, but instead follow WP:CONSENSUS and pick out what weight sources give. Krimsky and Domingo get little or even negative weight in other sources, so we do need to be careful about falling into a false middle hole by holding out Domingo and Krimsky as something we need to give a lot of attention to for the purposes of this discussion. On the note of satisfying everyone to some degree, Prokaryotes has recently been topic banned. Just a note for those in this discussion that weren't aware.

I also just noticed the FAO source was moved. First, we need to stress that it does state scientific consensus instead of just the no greater risk category. It also explicitly says the WHO's views are consistent with the scientific consensus. Just making sure those points are apparent in this discussion. We either should have it cited with the WHO because of that, or include it in the consensus references instead of no greater risk.

A few notes on weight. There is no specific issue with Bett with reliability or weight, and the fact that they cite the FAO is actually a reason for inclusion. One important factor is what more recent publications have to say about previous sources. If a source is reiterating a previous source in whole or in part by citation, that is important for establishing ongoing support of the idea in the scientific community. That and someone writing a paper isn't going to reinvent the wheel when they can just cite something that's established already. That's how the development of the literature works. Similarly, Domingo is cited by Nicholia, but not in a fashion that casts doubt on the scientific consensus at all. Nicholia doesn't give weight to that idea. That's why it's better to cite Nicholia's mention of Domingo instead of Domingo directly at this point. As for Paarlberg (not pushing for the source right now), I believe we've already discussed the one source we have on this explicitly stating that Paarlberg had no financial conflict of interest. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate all of that. I guess that I can say in general that I am trying extra-hard to be sympathetic to editors on all "sides" here, because I sincerely think that it is both better for Wikipedia and better in the long run for this page. That is even though my individual preferences are actually very close to yours. And we can have more details later on the page. But I looked again at the FAO source, and you are absolutely right that they specifically say "consensus". (How did I miss that?) Therefore, I definitely agree that it should be moved to the "consensus" sources, after Nicolia and before Ronald. I'll let this sit another day or two, and then I'll make a revised version. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like this part of the discussion has quieted down, so, in order to avoid making this section any more tl;dr, I'm going to start a new talk section, to try to finalize one of the possible versions of this sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I will probably put a notice of the various discussions on talk pages of all the affected articles that have the sentence, since they would be similarly affected. I have been meaning to do that at the time when this issue was brought to the WP:NOR noticeboard, pointing first to your new proposed language and then also to all the other discussions that had preceded it. I just hadn't gotten around to it. If you want to review the language I intend to use to give notice, I can write a draft here. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please, that would be very helpful, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Citations

Per WP:OVERSITE, "One cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring, which can lead to examples such as "Garphism is the study[1][2][3][4][5] of ...". Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up their point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit. Similar circumstances can also lead to overkill with legitimate sources, when existing sources have been repeatedly removed or disputed on spurious grounds or against consensus."

Besides, we do not need 15 citations to cite the scientific consensus on climate change. In fact we use the IPCC statement, the equivalent of the IPCC in the GMO debate is the WHO. The amount used here is again indicating OR/SYN, and a lack of a robust consensus. To the editors who add these refs, i suggest to remove old stuff, and stuff from single authors, and primary studies. prokaryotes (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Missed this section as I was working my way down. Copying my reply[33] from above "Not a fan of long strings of citations. Apart from raising suggestions of synth (which we really want to avoid) they are also aesthetically unappealing to the reader. If they are all needed I would prefer them to be in a note." AIRcorn (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And as I said in response, I also want to have a shorter cite string, so I think there is a pretty clear consensus for shortening it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of shortening it as that was my original intent as well. My initial edit was just to get the ball rolling as a transitional edit. One step at a time here. The next step is figuring out what should be a main citation and which ones should be combined into a single ref. The sources that were added all explicitly use the consensus language though, so the WP:BOLD addition was meant to lay the sources out there instead of everything getting lost in the talk page discussions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

While strings of citations are visually offputting, I think this is a special case. My cite suggestion is to leave the source in, but merge them into a single cite, so that the casual reader isn't burdened. Lfstevens (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. We need to be mindful that we constantly get the references challenged both with claims of too many sources and also too few to be a consensus regardless of how strong they are. That's why overcite carries a bit less weight on a controversial topic like this. It's better to cover the breadth of the literature in that regard, but keep the strongest ones as directly linked references and have some of the other more explanatory refs condensed into a single footnote for aesthetics. That way we also don't lose track of good references in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel rather strongly that, for the group of sources that have been in that longish string, we should go back to this page version: [34]. That's what we had just before KingofAces added new sources while making the edit that he self-reverted. And I'm ambivalent putting them instead into a combined note. With the revisions we are making, it matters for the sake of precision that the superscript citations be placed precisely, so that Nicholia is the cite for "consensus", a reasonable number of other sources cite "safety", and the WHO is the cite for "case-by-case". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there something with the new sources that wouldn't fit with the consensus statement? FYI, I reverted the language in my revert edit, but didn't expect issues with the sources, so I left them. Here's the quotes from each of them:

1. "Empirical evidence shows the high potential of the technology, and there is now a scientific consensus that the currently available transgenic crops and the derived foods are safe for consumption . . ."[35]
2. "There is a scientific consensus, even in Europe, that the GMO foods and crops currently on the market have brought no documented new risks either to human health or to the environment."[36]
3. "The broad scientific consensus was clear and compelling: ‘no conceptual distinction exists between genetic modification of plants and microorganisms by classical methods or by molecular methods that modify DNA and transfer genes' . . ."[37]
4. [38] is listed as a consensus statement by the society. It may be better for explaining the background as it doesn't use consensus language in the article itself, but it is in the title of it being a consensus statement.

I'm open to dropping any of those with a valid reason, but I was mainly just expecting we'd do the dropping or condensing into a single footnote as we worked out the new language and placement of sources. What are your thoughts on these specifically? Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Holy f--k! Where have you been hiding this all this time? We've been having editorial battles-royal over whether it is SYNTH to say that there is "scientific consensus", and you have had all these quotes about scientific consensus? Facepalm --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If I wasn't rushed yesterday and today, I probably would have went into more detail on them here and at NORN. I honestly expected people would be be reading the quotes I purposely put in the references and either have people speak up about some issue or largely consider the matter settled. That and I'd been focusing on the Nicholi discussion and the rewording discussion expecting people had taken the time to read the quotes I put into the article references. My bad if that didn't happen though. I thought the original edit would have done the trick. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

King, you attended the RfC that found we do not have support for "scientific consensus". Are these novel sources? I can't imagine why, if you had support all along, you did not bring these to the RfC where they could be reviewed. Do you believe you have new sourcing that would justify a new RfC? Because you all cannot hide over here and pretend that RfC never happened. Either a new RfC should be conducted in the full light of day, or you all should stop trying to rewrite history. That RfC was exhausting and I am not going to silently watch you, Trypto and Corn erase those 3 months of work. petrarchan47คุก 03:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The result of that RfC was not that there is no consensus to say that there is a "scientific consensus". The result was that there was no consensus in that there was no clear resolution one way or another. An inconclusive RfC does not establish a consensus against anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

1st link is a study about Kenya farmers, 2nd link seems to be about crops and is from a single author, 3rd link is by someone very close to Monsanto (Advisory Council to the CEO of Monsanto), 4th study is from 2003. prokaryotes (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And the fifth one smells bad. It doesn't look like the 4th one is really necessary, and if it's accurate that the 3rd was written by someone with industry bias, I'm fine with omitting it. But it sure looks like the first two add to the evidence that it is not SYNTH to say that there is "scientific consensus". About the 2nd study, the fact that the review was written by one author does not prevent it from being a reliable source. And although the 1st reports on a study about Africa, it's not like Africa should somehow be denigrated by Wikipedia editors, and if I understand the quote correctly (KofA please verify this), the authors are talking about their assessment of the scientific literature, not about a consensus among Kenyan farmers. Even people in Kenya know how to read scientific literature published elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Bingo on not just being consensus among Kenyan farmers (talking about Bett here right?). The quote comes from a paragraph where they are talking about worldwide evidence, and the standalone quote I took out of it should be pretty telling too. I'll look into the 3rd more a bit later tonight. I didn't catch any red flags when I first looked through the paper and associations, but there could have been something I missed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I took a second look and I'm still not finding anything that would represent a (real-life) COI that would question the usability of the source. His positions appear to all be academic, and doing things like setting up advisory councils to work on steering industry on the science is as much in their job descriptions as doing the same for the public. I'm not finding this information on him apparently being more closely associated with that, so I'd like to see where that claim is coming from. It could be there's more (and I'll remove it if there is), but we'd need to see what this is all about to see if the claim is valid. I've run out of time for the night, so I'll either have pop back for a few seconds in a couple of hours or check in tomorrow evening. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the strongest case I've yet seen for keeping the "consensus" claim. Each source must be assessed, and opponents should produce comparable quotes rejecting the consensus claim if they want to stop the train. I'd say the train is moving. On the cite question, I agree that if some sources make notably different points than others, then separate cites are warranted. Lfstevens (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

We should not use sources with strong ties to the industry for bold statements, at least not without disclosing it to the readers. and the above studies really not support the consensus part we discuss here. The 4th link from above, states explicit no direct effects. However, this is a meta analysis of 1700 studies, and the most involved studies are not about foods at all. prokaryotes (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Lfstevens, I see that train the way that you do. On the other hand, @KingofAces: given that Prokaryotes is concerned, specifically, about that author having been on an Advisory Council to the Monsanto CEO, I'd like to have a little more clarity about that. Is it true that the author held that position? Even though I believe that it likely would be "advisory" in the sense of providing objective scientific advice, rather than toeing the company line, I also want to know: was it a paid position? I suspect that it was. If so, I think it would be best not to use it as a source here. It's not worth arguing with editors who object, and it would be better to try to reach as much consensus as is practical. Even without that source, we have plenty of source material without it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to know more too, which is why I asked Prokaryotes for clarification on this claim. I did a quick search, but couldn't find any information, but I've been limited on time lately. I'll see if I can dig into it tomorrow, but it appears if there is something it's going to take some digging, which is a flag for me on the claim until we get something concrete to analyze. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lfstevens: FWIW, some of these sources have actually been used for this before - I've always seen this as a problem of having too many good sources rather than too few. I redid some of my searches on this subject, and if we want sources that specifically use the word "consensus," a couple of them are:

• Robert Blair; Joe M. Regenstein (26 June 2015). "Overall assessment of the safety of GM foods and feeds". Genetic Modification and Food Quality: A Down to Earth Analysis. Wiley. p. 205. ISBN 978-1-118-82361-3. "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently being marketed are safe as food and feed."
• Potrykus I (2013) Unjustified regulation prevents use of GMO technology for public good. Trends Biotechnol 31 (3):131-3. DOI:10.1016/j.tibtech.2012.11.008 PMID: 23273413 "There is broad scientific consensus, which has been published widely by academic and other public institutions, that there is no specific risk associated with transgenic plants." (Note that despite the title, the this one is peer-reviewed and not an opinion piece.)

If we want direct analysis of dissenting sources, the most recent source is this meta-analysis:

• Panchin AY, Tuzhikov AI (2016) Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons. Crit Rev Biotechnol ():1-5. DOI:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684 PMID: 26767435

The problem is keeping the list short enough to not overwhelm the reader, especially since everyone seems to differ on which ones are the most important. At some point I proposed using one of the references to link a subpage, which I still think could be a good idea. Or if a "Scientific opinion" article is written as is being proposed below, then perhaps that could work as well. Sunrise (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be more of looking for any source that says "consensus." Have you read the section on consensus in Blair and Regenstein's "... A Down to Earth Analysis"? Their consensus is their opinion based on a variety of evidence, including the problematic AAAS statement where they quote the entire AAAS food safety claim without quotation marks, giving the impression of an assertion in the authors' voice. The section seems like a good summary of the component arguments for GM food safety, discussing substantial equivalence, that GM methods are not inherently riskier, that DNA and protein are digested and processed out before they get to tissue, no reported harm, and so forth, and acknowledges that some dissenting studies exist (noting that "all have the same deficiencies..."). But a consensus statement from it should be directly attributed.

The 2014 Library of Congress GMO regulation report section on "scholarly opinion" has been brought up several times—as a summary statement, it seems more informative (indicating that there are a number of contributing opinions) and evenly worded, and comes from a reputable source that is clearly addressing the issue of scholarly opinion:

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] [39]

What I am against here is any sort of misleading oversimplification and presentation of a political message in place of spelling things out (as, for example, the WHO FAQ on GMOs and food does quite well, including, "Are GM foods safe?"). Why so much effort to push through this particular type of consensus wording, especially when it is so difficult to support? --Tsavage (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

We represent the reality of scientific opinion here, so we represent the scientific consensus when there is one and resist attempts to obfuscate it by fringe sources. One problem that comes up in many science topics is that trying to just cover all the details without the consensus statement can create undue weight. You'll have a bunch of technical details followed by sources that oppose the scientific consensus making it seem like there's a lot of scientific argument going on (i.e. WP:GE). Stating the consensus avoids GE issues and is what we are called to do by our policies and guidelines when sources both explicitly and implicitly say there is a consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

We represent the reality of sources, first and foremost, we rely on them to represent the reality of scientific opinion. Unless we have every relevant scientist in a room, voting, consensus is highly subjective, especially arguable when it is based on authority or (expert) opinion alone. In a debated area, it is best handled by quotes with attribution, to make it clear who is saying what. For example, we can quote the AAAS safety statement... Are you arguing that a quote is somehow not enough, that putting a consensus statement in Wikipedia's voice is required to add more weight? --Tsavage (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal opinions on what scientific consensus is, WP:RS/AC is clear, "Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." Right now we have multiple sources that both say consensus and that most scientists agree on the underlying statement that there is no difference in risk. There's really not much more to say. If you have issues with our policies and guidelines on academics or what we place in Wikipedia's voice, this isn't the place to change that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and when there are several sources of different apparent weight, with different consensus statements, and sources stating there is no consensus, we don't choose one and give it the extra weight unless it is extraordinarily definitive. And we don't add up a few. The balanced thing to do, is to quote or closely paraphrase with direct attribution, one source at a time, not concoct our own synthesis and wording. We don't conduct our own source reviews, we simply take a reasonable look at a situation and then rely on what the sources say. Here, there are multiple conflicting and varying sources, both among consensus statements, and as to any consensus existing. It's not up to us to sort that out on out through our own interpretation of it all. If things aren't settle, we can attribute. --Tsavage (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

^Agree, with emphasis of the quality of the source. It appears Domingo 2011 is one of the best sources because it is a literature review from a reputable author and expert on the subject, a review which is frequently cited. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, and as you've been made aware of many times, we cannot give undue weight to those WP:FRINGE ideas that conflict with the scientific consensus. We don't do that for climate change, vaccines, evolution, or other controversies on science topics where there will always be contrarian fringe sources. We don't engage in WP:GE as you suggest we do, especially when there is a scientific consensus documented by sources according to our polices and guidelines. At this point, addressing your comments is getting more into behavior issue territory. This is not the appropriate forum to address that, so I won't respond further to you to avoid letting this conversation derail content discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Certainly, consider the reliability of each in a straightforward way, for example, ranking peer-reviewed journal review sources above statements based on authority and expert opinion. FRINGE may come into play, with clear (verifiable) indication that a view or author is FRINGE. (@Kingofaces43:: Please focus on content. If you feel that replying to my comments is a behavioral problem - and I see you put a Discretionary Sanctions notice on my Talk page - then please feel free not to reply.) --Tsavage (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I just have a personal preference on not using books as it's difficult to gauge their threshold for publication, but good find on the Panchin source. I can think of a few articles where that is useful. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

My name has been invoked a few times in this thread. So here's my take. WP has policies for evaluating sources. Don't get creative. Discard those that do not comply. Include those that do. Distill what they say. Stop. Lfstevens (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, that's hard to do for this subject - though I completely agree that it should be easy. One of the problems is that the objections tend to be circular depending on the type of source. If it's a position statement, then it's not peer-reviewed; if it's a review article, it only represents a few people. If no evidence is cited, then they didn't give any reasons; if evidence is given, this was their opinion based on this specific evidence. If they don't use the word "consensus," it's SYNTH; if they do mention it, then...And so forth.

That's a simplification, of course, but the reason why so many sources have been used is that these kind of objections can continue endlessly and exhaustively. Placing emphasis on any one source leads to TLDR on the talk page, because no source is perfect and there are always objections that will be argued at length (this also happens to whichever source comes first, due to the implicit emphasis from positioning). Reducing the length of the list ends up being temporary, because new participants to the discussion bring up objections that are addressed by sources no longer present. Since there are so many good sources, after a certain point it becomes much easier just to add those other sources back in. It would be great to break this cycle, but I'm not sure how. Sunrise (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sunrise:: Your first paragraph is a serviceable summary of the situation, however, the analysis in the second paragraph is incomplete, in that it does not consider from an encyclopedia-writing perspective, what "scientific consensus" represents and how it should be used.

• "scientific consensus" is meta information, #scientificconsensus, a descriptive tag for either of two types, quantifiable (a literal vote count of an unarguably representative majority) or an opinion (based on someone examining some things)
• in the case of opinion, criticism and opposing views are always possible, and to be expected for a contentious topic
• evaluating a consensus source based on opinion involves either reexamining the evidence and conclusion, or assigning a degree of authority to the source
• "scientific consensus" is commonly used to add further weight to a position, it is usually used in a political capacity, cited when opinions are divided

We can look further to a discussion of the term, for more context relevant to neutral encyclopedia presentation (taken from Scientific consensus): In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

These points easily explain why there is strong debate over the use of the term in GM articles (at this point, there is no assumption of bad faith on any part, simply differing editorial views and perhaps views of the subject itself).

In a neutral encyclopedia, it is not the editors' place to take sides, only to represent the verifiable facts in a neutral and balanced way. In the absence of a hard-count consensus, with such a variety of consensus sources with variations in their precise statements and criticisms of them, plus no-consensus sources, the primary fact is that consensus opinions exist—we clearly cannot go so far into re-analyzing sources as to pick one, or reach summary language encompassing several, without ultimately coming to original conclusions.

The thing to do (firmly supported by our content policy of verifiable (i.e. non-original) and neutral content) is to present consensus agreement and dissent as views directly attributed to their sources, with decisions as to which to include and exclude, and relevant criticisms of particular views if warranted, based on sources as well. For example, if brevity is the goal, include the views of the most prominent and presumably authoritative sources for consensus and no-consensus (exactly as the Library of Congress has done, see "Scholarly opinion" above). --Tsavage (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on GMOs

The article scientific opinion on climate change quotes various statements from major involved bodies. I suggest we should add a section for the scientific opinion on GMOs, and then quote there the major involved bodies of GMO research. The lede could state that there is a general agreement on food safety, and that it must be judged on a case per case basis. This solution would be the most accurate, and the most scientific one, since it comes directly from the experts. This could also include reviews, and statements from groups like Union of Concerned Scientists. prokaryotes (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The specific topics are in the scope of the controversies article already where such information is covered, so that would be redundant. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The focus of this article is on the crops, not the food. While there is some mention of food and food safety here, these topics are dealt with in more detail in other articles, as Kingofaces43 points out. Assembling a list of statements and reviews could be helpful, but this is probably not the best place for such a list.Dialectric (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What about a dedicated article? prokaryotes (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What would you call the dedicated article? If it were me, I would put together the list in my user draft space first, then see where the information fit best. Creating an article could work, but could cause some additional conflict unless the scope was sorted out beforehand.Dialectric (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Several editors suggested here and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#OR_on_GMO_articles and at a current ANI discussion to quote official announcements on GMO food safety. Thus, the article would include all official announcements by scientific bodies. prokaryotes (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have often considered the idea of an individual article on scientific opinions. It has the big advantage of presenting all the information we have been arguing over clearly for readers and other editors. However, it also has a few disadvantages. The biggest one is deciding on inclusion criteria. What scientific organisations get to be represented and how do we assign the correct weight to their opinions?AIRcorn (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I would support creation of such an article. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We need to be careful that it would not be called a WP:POV fork. Given that the crops are food crops (as opposed to, for example, cut flowers), I'm not really seeing a difference between food and crops here. I don't think that any putative effects of GM arise during cooking. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Food and crops are not the same. They are regulated by different agencies in the U.S. under the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology for different kinds of safety concerns. To the best of my knowledge food is sold directly to consumers and restaurants to be eaten, whereas crops are an earlier stage of the process of creating food, and concerns like creating weeds, cross-pollination, other effects on plant and animal life come up for crops but not for food. And of course, Bt Corn is classified as a pesticide so must be regulated as such. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

For me, this isn't an academic discussion of the differences between food and crops, but rather a discussion about whether there should be one Wikipedia page or two. I fully understand that restaurant patrons do not sit down to eat in the middle of a farm field, and I don't see why the regulatory decisions of two different agencies must be covered on two different pages instead of on the same page. So I understand that there is a difference between crops and food. My concern is that the difference might not require treating them on two different pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Crops and food are interlinked to a degree, so aspects of food production (i.e. crops) go over in the controversies article besides things like food safety. I've actually considered for a time just renaming the controversies article to genetically modified organism controversies, but my previous sentence explains why it's largely unneeded. The crops article isn't quite a subset of the foods article, but it's meant to have a bit more focus on the production end of things while the foods article is a bit more of a catch-all for a wider berth. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not clear on what Prokaryotes is proposing, so I was speaking generally about creating additional articles in this area. Tryptofish, to your point, safety of crops is distinct from foods for several reasons - 1.some crops have related dusts, molds, allergens, etc. that affect farmers and handlers due to the high levels of exposure, but do not affect end consumers. 2.FDA safety assessment for pesticide levels on sold produce assumes that the produce is washed. Again, farmers and handlers can be exposed to higher levels of chemicals. Neither of these is GMO specific, but there is a significant difference between food safety and crop safety.Dialectric (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you make a good point about the safety of farm workers, but this page, which is about crops, is clearly much more about food than about farm workers. And the issues about farm workers aren't precisely about GM organisms, but rather about chemicals used in their cultivation, and I am not aware of any natural molds etc that are specific to GM plants. Certainly, a page like glyphosate should address issues of farm worker safety (as should pages about chemicals used on conventional crops). I suppose one could spin out a page about foods derived from GM plants, and make this page only about the effects of GM crops within farms, but I think it makes better sense to cover foods here, as foods that come from crops. And I cannot think of any way that foods, after being washed, would have greater safety issues that would justify a separate page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you proposing an article reorganization? what would it look like? I think a more logical structure to these articles is possible, but I personally haven't figured one out. One gap I see and mentioned months ago was that non-food products of GMO plants do not have their own article, and criticism related to these products does not fit well into genetically modified food controversies.Dialectric (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry for my lack of clarity. I am skeptical of a reorganization, and I was thinking out loud about how various possible reorganizations would not be improvements. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Re washing, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13197-011-0499-5 "The pesticide residues, left to variable extent in the food materials after harvesting, are beyond the control of consumer and have deleterious effect on human health." - Just washing is likely to not get rid of all residues. prokaryotes (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: The specific topics are in the scope of the controversies article already where such information is covered This recurring argument, and that certain GM food/crop topics are found only in the Controversies article, relies on a separation of information that is unsupported by sources.

For a clear example of how a reliable source groups GM food subtopics, the WHO Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods covers many aspects and issues, including safety, public perception, regulation, and environmental impact, all at equal weight on one page (and does not use the word "controversy") - there is no basis for us to arrive at a novel, dramatically different organization of material, where basic information is segregated in other articles. --Tsavage (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I'm fully aware you don't like the way the layout of the articles that's been developed. You've been rather adamant in that, but the general ongoing status quo has been that we have the controversies page to help manage weight issues to not overshadow the foods article while still giving enough space to put the controversies in context. Content forks are how we manage that here at Wikipedia. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Your reply says, that's how it is. My comment is that how it is defies sourcing and needs to be fixed. We have basic information segregated in an article called Controversies that has no mention in the main article, compared to high-quality sources like the WHO that include that information within their main coverage, where the word "controversy" does not even appear. There are other examples. This is what the sources squarely indicate. Our structure misrepresents the topic by not presenting all the aspects normally recognized in mainstream sources in one place. If otherwise, please demonstrate? --Tsavage (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read WP:NOT as a single preferred source of yours doesn't dictate how we organize articles here. That's done under WP:CONSENSUS, WP:MOS, etc.. You keep going on about this, but it's time to drop the WP:STICK. I for one am not going to entertain you on this further when you've consistently failed to get traction for these ideas. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I mention Controversies here because you argue against an article like scientific opinion on climate change for GM food safety opinion, by referring to Genetically modified food controversies as the equivalent, which it clearly is not, yet it is repeatedly used this way, to defer content. (I'm not sure why you appear to be trying to personalize my comments, they can stand on their own.) --Tsavage (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)