Talk:Séralini affair/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Edit request on 24 May 2013 - Adding new text for scientific clarity in the section copied below

Sprague-Dawley rats have a lifespan of about two years and have a high tendency to get cancer over their lifespan (one study found that over eighty percent of males and over seventy percent of females got cancer under normal conditions). Sprague-Dawley rats are routinely used for long-term studies on toxicological and carcinogenic effects of chemicals exactly because of their biological properties which help to detect negative effects of chemicals. Major institutions using this strain of rats are the National Toxicology Program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services () and the European Ramazzini Foundation for Oncology and Environmental Sciences (Italy) (). Many claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study. Haveabreak (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I semiprotected the article for a short time because a new user was repeatedly blanking it with speedy deletion requests. Protection will lapse in half an hour and you can then edit it directly. Your last sentence needs a source, and the "weasel words" many claimed that would be better replaced by the names of those who claimed this. JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The requested edit above obliterates the key point of the paragraph, which is about statistical power. The criticism is not about the choice of SD rats alone, but rather about the choice of the number of SD rats used for a lifetime study -- three elements of the experimental design considered together - the kind of rat, the length of the study, and the number of rats per arm. This is an issue of experimental design. If you want to get meaningful results in any experiment - results that can show experimental effects above random noise - you have to design your experiment carefully. If you are doing a lifetime study in SD rats (2 elements), you need over 50 SD rats per arm to get meaningful results (3rd element), because SD rats have a high rate of cancer over their lifetimes, It is absolutely true that SD rats are commonly used in tox and carcinogenicity studies, but they are used at low numbers like Seralini used in shorter term (3 month) studies, not for lifetime studies, and if lifetime studies are done, over 50 rats are used. Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality and original research

Looking at the article as it was on May 18, I see a few places where Wikipedia editors have inserted their own opinions. An example: "Tester's remark ... is scientifically meaningless, since GM foods are not labeled in the US and thus it is impossible to trace consumption." This is classified as original research on Wikipedia, and is not allowed. We are only allowed to include material that has already been published in reliable sources. That includes also means that we cannot include synthesis of previously published material that is if it is used to create original or novel material. Also, a great deal of this version consists of detailed criticism of the study. As well as being original research, I think this violates Wikipedia's principle of undue weight. Per Wikipedia:Criticism, criticism should not form the bulk of the article, and instead we should focus on reporting the facts of the matter. Notable criticism can be included within reason, but if almost all the article consists of criticism, I don't think we can claim that this is written from a neutral point of view. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice work! bobrayner (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Although I'm not sure Dusha100 will like me removing so much of the material that they wrote. Dusha, it's important for you to understand that I haven't removed your work out of any idealogical position for or against GM food. I've removed your work because that is how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines say that we should write our articles. Also, I think that the article could do with a restructuring and more background info about the study itself, but I don't have time to do that today. If no-one else beats me to it, I'll see if I have time to do it later this week some time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Dusha, please try to understand the removal of your edits is not based on your positions, it it based on wikipedia policies. Instead of trying to add edits that violates policies over and over, you should try to listen to those trying to help you. BlackHades (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because it removes useful discussion around validity of scientific studies/ publications and regulations in an attempt to silence legitimate criticism. Mike Kelly (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

speedy delete notice created and then deleted

I second the request for deletion of this page. Any information that attempts to create balance in this libellous, unscientific attack on a peer-reviewed paper by an experienced toxicologist is immediately deleted without cause. Clearly these 'editors' are not interested in engaging in discussion; they simply vandalise the article. Jytdog and BlackHades are the latest examples. Apparently only their own biased sources are reliable! Dusha100 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear that regarding this page, due to the constant deletion of edits that attempt to add balance and other already-published and authoritative views to the page, the second of the Wikipedia "Five Pillars" is being breached. The second pillar is as follows:

"WIKIPEDIA IS WRITTEN FROM A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

The article is clearly not neutral, not truthful, not balanced, not accurate, not reliable, and not independent... it is a piece of advocacy of a particular position, as well as being defamatory.

Seemingly the users who are determined to preserve this article as an attack piece cannot even allow dissenting views of scientists in regulatory bodies to be noted; and while they are eager to point to supposed conflicts of interest on Prof Seralini's part, pointing out the conflicts of interest of Seralini's critics, which are well reported in some media articles, is not acceptable to them. I have picked up several misleading statements that are contradicted by clear evidence, yet all my attempts to redress the balance are rapidly vandalised. The claimed reasons given for the deletions, when they are offered, are spurious because they could easily be addressed by making minor edits to the language. Instead of this, there are wholesale deletions on flimsy grounds.Dusha100 (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi dusha. As per the instructions on the speedy delete notice, I have removed the tag. (The instructions don't say what to do next, so I created the section header) This article is not about Seralini himself, nor even about all his work. It is about the 2012 paper. He is not the subject, nor is any other entity (for example CRIIGEN), so the article cannot "disparage or threaten its subject or some other entity. This includes libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to." The article is very much about the 2012 paper. Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear to me what you mean about not "allow(ing) dissenting views of scientists in regulatory bodies to be noted". Wikipedia is not about giving "equal time" nor is it about cherry picking - it is about presenting the world as depicted in reliable sources. You wanted to depict the Belgian food authority's report as supporting the Seralini study, when in fact its first conclusion was that the study itself brings nothing to the table. I moved it back to the criticism section. I did pull out the full quote of the findings, because its second finding did reach out a fig leaf to Seralini, in granting his long-held point that we need tougher standards for tox testing. And I appreciated you causing me to re-read that, so that this could accurately be told in Wikipedia. But pulling out quotes from dissenters from the Belgian committee gives those voices undue weight. And the fact is, that mainstream science - and most importantly - regulatory scientists - have thrown out the study, across the board. The data was not strong enough for the conclusions that Seralini drew from it. That is the story that this article needs to tell. The mainstream story. That's how Wikipedia works.Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh and what "misleading statements that are contradicted by clear evidence" are in the article, and what contradicts them? If that is true then we should indeed fix them! Please do bring them up here so we can discuss them. Sometimes people make mistakes in deleting things (or adding things) but this is what Talk is for. Jytdog (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Article title

Why does the article take its title, "Séralini affair", from the title of this Cosmos piece attacking the Séralini study? Wouldn't "Séralini GMO study" or something like that be more appropriate? groupuscule (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

it is the title that the original creator gave - you should ask him or her where it came from rather than assuming. The title does follow suit of the Pusztai affair article that has existed for quite some time - that may be its precedent. There are ton of Wikpedia articles with the title "X affair" referring to some scandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=50&offset=0&redirs=1&profile=default&search=affair I am not opposed to changing the name but it seems reasonable that the title would reference the controversy. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Another ridiculous attempt to hide information. This needs to be changed immediately. We refer to sexual escapades as affairs, not science. Is it a cionicidence this happens to be a study that disgruntled a multinational?. petrarchan47tc 01:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I wish you were not so harsh in discussing things, petrarchan. Here are examples of nonsexual "affairs" that are wikipedia articles, other than Pusztai affair (which is the closest, and has existed for 3 years now); Sokal affair (also not far removed as it was about a scientific publication); Dreyfus affair, Haymarket affair, Iran–Contra affair, Trent Affair, Gaspée Affair, Lavon Affair (and there are many more)

Definition of "affair" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affair - all these are solidly in the territory of 3b here. I think the whirlwind around the 2012 publication was definitely " a matter occasioning public anxiety, controversy, or scandal" no matter which side of it you were on.

1 a plural : commercial, professional, public, or personal business

b : matter, concern

2 a procedure, action, or occasion only vaguely specified; also : an object or collection of objects only vaguely specified <their house was a 2-story affair>

3

a : a romantic or passionate attachment typically of limited duration : liaison 2b

b : a matter occasioning public anxiety, controversy, or scandal : case Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, since you were not the one who named the article, I'm confused as to why you are taking my comments personally. I'm glad you're not opposed to changing the name. petrarchan47tc 08:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the name of the article should be changed to "Séralini Scandal", bearing in mind the quality of the science involved, and the unusual nature of the launch and publicity surrounding the paper, and the continued hype. "Séralini Affair" doesn't seem to do it justice? Roxy the dog (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Is a pretty consistent way of addressing articles of this type and is more neutral than scandal. This article is about more than the study and its reception. It is also about the Science by press conference approach and the books and films promised etc. Simply calling it "Séralini GMO study" hides the main reason this is notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

removal of description of methods section quoted from paper; primary flag

Hi Arc

You removed the quote from the methods section of the experimental and control groups and flagged other text as "primary". For what it was worth, I debated a lot about doing this, before I did it. Because there is so much strong rhetoric flying around about this paper, both supporting it and criticizing it, in the scientific literature and popular press, that I thought it was important to quote and cite 'from the horse's mouth' what the authors said they found, and what they said they did, to at least have that part uncontestable from either side. I prefer to use secondary sources all the time too, but as I understand it, it is OK to cite primary only in order to say "they said X" and that is what I was doing here. That was my rationale, anyway. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In general it is best to avoid citing material purely from primary sources and use them to augment the secondary sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, primary sources do have their place, but as per IRWolfie- we should be using secondary sources when they're available. For example, the level of reporting by secondary sources will indicate the relative importance of content from the primary sources. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits June 1

It seems unnecessary to include a Monsanto-funded source when we have so many independent sources. (By the way, the text I removed identifies the authors as "independent" when they are not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they thank Monsanto within the article.) I would say that since it's peer-reviewed, it's still RS, but not as reliable as the independent sources. There are enough people who think that all the independent sources have COI, so I think inclusion casts unnecessary doubt on the independent sources (guilt by association, among other things) and by extension casts doubt on the consensus conclusion. There are probably more careful wording choices which could be used to avoid this, but even then there is still a risk of misinterpretation. Since we have more than enough material from the other sources, we can afford to hold them to a higher standard. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That is what I figured; I reject "guilt by association" arguments (by that account, nothing by Seralini should be discussed as he is funded by anti-GMO organizations and is therefore biased) but I like the higher standard thing. Feel free to re-delete and thanks for the dialog. Hopefully people supporting Seralini will not interpret this deletion as hiding anything; I do not believe that was your intent and now you have stated what the intent is. Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad you agree, and I'm always willing to discuss. :-) I didn't mean to state a guilt by association argument, only that the content could be interpreted that way. Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I moved it to the further reading section, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to Groupuscule's points above

Responding to some of the points Groupuscule raised in his post above (separating from request for move which needs bullet point responses). Groupuscule, thanks for posting. This is a bit much to respond to at all at once, but let me respond to some things. I will separate my responses so you and others can respond point by point. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

On the libel suit - good point, will add it. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional note. The sources you brought for this are all biased. Am using different, NPOV sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

About the "proGMO slant" you mention throughout and in the title of this section, about citing papers that Seralini cites in his self-defense... and about other points you make.. Let's be clear -- as with Global warming and Global warming controversy - it is good for Wikipedia to describe controversies, but Wikipedia needs to describe the scientific consensus clearly, and not give equal weight to non-consensus viewpoints. Global warming is real, and is caused by humans. This is the scientific consensus. Food from GMOs that is on the market is no more risky than food from conventional counterparts. This is the scientific consensus. Seralini is trying to overturn the consensus, and is so far failing. This article is not about whether food from GMOs is safe nor whether regulatory requirements are strict enough, and those issues should not be recapitulated here. This article is about the 2012 Seralini study and the brouhaha around it. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You cite the independentsciencenews.com story and the http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14514 story, and in several other places make it somewhat clear that you subscribe those perspectives. I find the independentsciencenews story a pretty reprehensible example of "Fox News" type journalism where you ask insinuating questions and count on people to leap to the answer and walk away believing that answer. (e.g. "What if the President lied about Benghazi, and what if he in fact knew about this much earlier?") Nobody knows why Goodman is now an Associate Editor at FTC (not a Managing Editor or Editor in Chief - not "controlling", and not Monsanto itself controlling as the headline of the article would have you believe) nor why he took the job. I find the "Monsanto zombie" hypothesis and the conspiracy hypothesis really dehumanizing and unscientific in both this and the gmwatch article. There was a great Nature article about the unusual level of scientific conflict around scientific publications on GMOs that was brought to my attention in the comment section of Goodman article - worth a read, as it is a nuanced report of the situation that has interviews with people (people! not zombies) on both sides of the conflicts and from observers of it. You don't need Monsanto zombies and secret conspiracies to explain the conflicts. I created a new section in the Controversies article discussing with these unusual conflicts. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

About Vidal, he while he is narrowly right about this being the first long term feeding study of glyphosate-resistant maize, this is by far not the first long term feeding study of a GMO.... so in that sense the nature of the study itself is not "dynamite". Seralini didn't cite any of these studies in his paper, so it is somewhat natural that Vidal might have been misled..

Sakamoto Y et al (2008) A 104-week feeding study of genetically modified soybeans in F344rats. J Food Hyg Soc Jpn 49:272–282

Snell C, Bernheim A, Berge JB, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Ricroch AE (2012) Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food Chem Toxicol 50:1134–1148Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to introduce original research. If it is not the first it would be better to look for someone else (someone reliable) that has already made that connection and use them to counter the point. AIRcorn (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on that Aircorn. These two studies and Seralini's failure to cite them were pointed out in Arjo G, et al. (2013). Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: an in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. study claiming that Roundup Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup cause cancer in rats. Transgenic Research 22: 2 255-267. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an interesting, recent article about this here that could shed some light. petrarchan47tc 23:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The strategy, often with the willing cooperation of publishers, is effective and sometimes blatant. In 2009, the scientific publishing giant Elsevier was found to have invented an entire medical journal, complete with editorial board, in order to publish papers promoting the products of the pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck. Merck provided the papers, Elsevier published them, and doctors read them, unaware that the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine was simply a stuffed dummy.

Fast forward to September 2012, when the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) published a study that caused an international storm (Séralini, et al. 2012). The study, led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, France, suggested a Monsanto genetically modified (GM) maize, and the Roundup herbicide it is grown with, pose serious health risks. The two-year feeding study found that rats fed both suffered severe organ damage and increased rates of tumors and premature death. Both the herbicide (Roundup) and the GM maize are Monsanto products. Corinne Lepage, France’s former environment minister, called the study “a bomb”. Subsequently, an orchestrated campaign was launched to discredit the study in the media and persuade the journal to retract it. Many of those who wrote letters to FCT (which is published by Elsevier) had conflicts of interest with the GM industry and its lobby groups, though these were not publicly disclosed. The journal did not retract the study. But just a few months later, in early 2013 the FCT editorial board acquired a new “Associate Editor for biotechnology”, Richard E. Goodman. This was a new position, seemingly established especially for Goodman in the wake of the “Séralini affair”. Richard E. Goodman is professor at the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska. But he is also a former Monsanto employee, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. While at Monsanto he assessed the allergenicity of the company’s GM crops and published papers on its behalf on allergenicity and safety issues relating to GM food (Goodman and Leach 2004).

Goodman had no documented connection to the journal until February 2013. His fast-tracked appointment, directly onto the upper editorial board raises urgent questions. Does Monsanto now effectively decide which papers on biotechnology are published in FCT? And is this part of an attempt by Monsanto and the life science industry to seize control of science?

Yep, and that last sentence is classic Fox News "journalism" (e.g. "What if the President lied about Benghazi, and what if he in fact knew about this much earlier?" and on the basis of this kind of speculation, call Benghazi "bigger than Watergate"). Lovely. With respect to any role for Monsanto in the scientific vitriol, independentsciencenews presents no evidence - only insinuation and "guilt by association" - what I call the "Monsanto zombie" hypothesis. The Nature article I linked to above provides a more real world explanation for the vitriol. It doesn't make the vitriol any less ugly but at least provides a nuanced understanding of what is going on, that doesn't rely on conspiracy theories. Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is nothing close to a reliable source, but conspiratorial ideation. Use the scientific literature, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That is the independentsciencenews article that groupuscule mentioned and that I responded to. These anti-GMO sites republish each other's content all the time which is one reason why there ~seems~ to be so much anti-GMO information out there. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional note, about the letter signed by 130 scientists that you mention, Groupuscule. It is cited in the article already. And you will note that the letter mostly seems upset with the vitriol with which Seralini's paper was attacked. They do not support the conclusions that are stated in Seralini's 2012 study -- they say "the protocol followed in this study has flaws" (the full sentence is "On the other hand, the protocol followed in this study has flaws that are debated within the scientific community." - I am just pointing out that they say unambiguously that the study has flaws.) and they no where say that the conclusions are right. They do say that they support more research into the safety of GMOs. Everybody - including regulators who have approved them -- would love more data. That is not an earth shaking statement. They also hold wide open the possibility that Seralini may ultimately be proven right and bring up asbestos as a great example of products that were allowed on the market that turned out to be toxic. Again, none of that says that they believe that the conclusions of the 2012 paper are right. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"Everybody loves more data" imho isn't quite true, it applies to real scientists interested in knowledge only. But for the rest of that lot it is mostly "everybody loves more data supporting their position" and many of them in doubt prefer no data to data not supporting their position.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No that is not what I am saying -- not at all. If you read the documents that regulators produce about the work they do, particularly in standards setting, they always want to have better assays and instrumentation, and therefore better data, with which to make the judgments they have to make. Example - substantial equivalence. This is based on asking whether a GM product (say Bt corn) is substantially equivalent to the parent non GM strain. When these guys first started working, that was a question they could ask at a high level, but non GM strains of corn had not been deeply characterized, and in fact characterizing any agricultural produce definitively is highly problematic since a given piece of produce will vary based on where it was grown, the conditions under which it was grown, how long it has been since it was harvested and how it was treated on the way to the lab. Regulators want better answers for those things so that when they consider substantial equivalence they can give more complete, nuanced answers. That is one example. Another example is having data that protocols that are being used to study, say toxicity, are indeed sufficient. Meta-data, if you will. That is what I meant. What you say is also true, however. Both "sides" would love more definitive data proving their point. But that is not what I was saying. Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are conflating two independent letters, each signed by 100+ scientists. You are not responding to the claim of egregiously imbalanced coverage. A handful of (mostly industry-funded) scientists get paragraphs upon paragraphs of space, while 130 of their critics receive only 1 sentence. You say "It is cited in the article already"—indeed, both letters are—without responding to any my actual claims about how these letters are badly misrepresented. Did you misread my comment on purpose or by accident?

You are not responding to any of the many arguments about biased pro-GM sources. You are not responding to any of the evidence suggesting an industry PR campaign to smear Séralini. You have written a lot but not said very much. groupuscule (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe I and others have responded to everything you have brought up. Please let me know what specific issues you see outstanding. Also, did you see my comment below, which you have not responded to yet? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(Interjection) Per WP:NPOV the relative proportion of coverage must reflect the proportion of coverage by the reliable sources. Any claim that coverage is "egregiously imbalanced" should refer to this proportion. Secondly, it looks like your sources are either unreliable or low reliability (but please feel free to get outside views at WP:RSN, then we can follow their judgement). Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Groupuscule, first, I disagree very strongly that regulatory agencies are industry funded -- those are government employees. Most of the article is the response of regulatory bodies. With respect to the letter, thank you for pointing out my error about the letter! Yes that letter does support the conclusions of the Seralini paper. As you note, the article includes it, and accurately describes the signatories as scientists, scholars, and activists. Most of that article is taken up with concern about the vitriol, like the other letter. The rest does repeat some of Seralini's arguments in favor of his studies - for example, that SD rats are used in industry-funded studies too, which is in argument that entirely ducks the criticism that the problem with the choice of rat species is the length of the study and the number used, not the choice of rat species alone (the regulatory standard for short term studies is 10 per arm - and this is what industry uses; the standard for a long term term study in rats that die at high rates, like these do, is 65 per arm.) If S had done short term studies or used 65 rats per arm, the choice of SD rats would not be so much under discussion. But in any case, what content would you like to see from these two letters included in the article? Jytdog (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly Addressing GM Lobby Slant

It is clear to me and, I think, others, that this article is slanted heavily towards those who want to discredit Séralini's research. In the article itself, we have a link to this letter, signed by 130 scientists, supporting Séralini's work. We take care to note that these scientists are associated with anti-GM groups.

On the other side, the article devotes many sentences to critics of Séralini's work. It's not clear whether these critics number more than 130. Nor whether they are free from financial ties to the GM industry. We cite Henry I. Miller as an expert, despite his membership in an industry mouthpiece.

This letter, which currently earns one single sentence in our article, makes some important claims. The first few are worth quoting in full, to understand what we're dealing with here:

1) History of Attacks on Risk-finding Studies. Seralini and colleagues are just the latest in a series of researchers whose findings have triggered orchestrated campaigns of harassment. Examples from just the last few years include Ignacio Chapela, a then untenured Assistant Professor at Berkeley, whose paper on GM contamination of maize in Mexico (Quist and Chapela, 2001) sparked an intensive internet-based campaign to discredit him. This campaign was reportedly masterminded by the Bivings Group, a public relations firm specializing in viral marketing – and frequently hired by Monsanto (Delborne, 2008).

The distinguished career of biochemist Arpad Pusztai, came to an effective end when he attempted to report his contradictory findings on GM potatoes (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999a). Everything from a gag order, forced retirement, seizure of data, and harassment by the British Royal Society were used to forestall his continued research (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999b; Laidlaw, 2003). Even threats of physical violence have been used, most recently against Andres Carrasco, Professor of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires, whose research (Paganelli et al. 2010) identified health risks from glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup (Amnesty International, 2010).

It was no surprise therefore, that when in 2009, 26 corn entomologists took the unprecedented step of writing directly to the US EPA to complain about industry control of access to GM crops for research, the letter was sent anonymously (Pollack, 2009).

2) The Role of the Science Media. An important but often unnoticed aspect of this intimidation is that it frequently occurs in concert with the science media (Ermakova, 2007; Heinemann and Traavik, 2007; Latham and Wilson, 2007). Reporting of the Seralini paper in arguably the most prestigious segments of the science media: Science, the New York Times, New Scientist, and the Washington Post uniformly failed to “balance” criticism of the research, with even minimal coverage of support for the Seralini paper (Carmen, 2012; Enserink, 2012; MacKenzie, 2012; Pollack, 2012). Nevertheless, less well-resourced media outlets, such as the UK Daily Mail appeared to have no trouble finding a positive scientific opinion on the same study (Poulter, 2012).

3) Misleading Media Reporting. A key pattern with risk-finding studies is that the criticisms voiced in the media are often red herrings, misleading, or untruthful. Thus, the use of common methodologies was portrayed as indicative of shoddy science when used by Seralini et al. (2012) but not when used by industry (see refs above and Science Media Centre, 2012). The use of red herring arguments appears intended to sow doubt and confusion among non-experts. For example, Tom Sanders of Kings College, London was quoted as saying: “This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted” (Hirschler and Kelland, 2012 ). He failed to point out, or was unaware, that most industry feeding studies have used Sprague-Dawley rats (e.g. Hammond et al., 1996, 2004, 2006; MacKenzie et al., 2007). In these and other industry studies (e.g. Malley et al. 2007), feed intake was unrestricted. Sanders’ comments are important because they were widely quoted and because they were part of an orchestrated response to the Seralini study by the Science Media Centre of the British Royal Institution. The Science Media Centre has a long history of quelling GMO controversies and its funders include numerous companies that produce GMOs and pesticides.

Check out that last rebuttal. Here we have 130 scientists rebutting one. One scientist, Tom Sanders, who prefers aspartame to fruit. Tom Sanders, quoted on PR Newswire. Tom Sanders, who got paid by NutraSweet when it was owned by Monsanto. It's Tom Sanders v. 130 other scientists, but his criticism is reported as fact. Does this bias have something to do with the multi-million dollar GM public relations industry?

Does it?

Here are the other individuals currently named in the article as critics of the Séralini research. These individuals are representatives of a consensus so vast it outweighs the letter cheeky 130.

• Henry I. Miller
• Jon Entine
• Marion Nestle
• Maurice Moloney

Independent scientists with no ties to the world of business & PR? Sticking their necks out to buck the anti-GM current? ... Or are they saying what they're paid to say? Either way, do their opinions completely eclipse those of the scientists who support Séralini?

Why are these folks (140 scientists) described as "opposing the controversy"? Why are they quoted regarding the "image of the community" ... and not in their statement which seriously undermines the apparent consensus presented above?

The fact that a group of a dozen people claiming to represent six academies have decided on a joint statement without debate is contrary to the normal functioning of these institutions and questions the vision of science and technology (and their usefulness name) who presided over such a decision (unlike, for example, the debate organized by the Academy of Sciences in the framework of the debate on climate change, after which the responsibility of the man was proven).

Y'all felt this wasn't relevant? Not worth the space to include?

What's going on here?

Why, for that matter, are the critics acting so incredulous about the idea that a deadly poison, marketed for its ability to kill whole fields full of plants, might also have effects on animal organisms as well?

Some possible reasons have been presented. Make up your own mind. But, more importantly, what solutions can we find to the bias exerted by the corporate PR machine? Not only on Wikipedia, but on the whole field of discourse extending from the 'soft' science press into the world of journals and studies?

An obvious necessary change is to give the page a more neutral name.

Séralini affair → Séralini GMO research – Foregrounds the research itself rather than the controversy surrounding it. The current name flags Séralini's research as "discredited"—but this reflects PR spin, not actual consensus. Furthermore, the article we have now describes several studies by Séralini, yet the name refers to controversy surrounding only a single one. Finally, the name of the article is taken from a single magazine piece groupuscule (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could include more information that falls outside the narrative demanded by the PR machine.

How about including John Vidal's positive coverage of the study, printed in The Guardian:

This was scientific dynamite. It was the first time that maize containing these specific genes had been tested on rats over two years - nearly their full lifespan - as opposed to the 90-day trials demanded by regulators. Around a dozen long-term studies of different GM crops have failed to find similar effects. Séralini's study also looked at the toxicity of the Roundup herbicide when fed directly to rats.

It even discusses the critics! And it says the study will have lasting significance:

Despite the concerns over Séralini's methodological flaws, it looks as though the study will not be swept under the carpet. It is the longest study done on this variety of maize and many argue that it must be taken seriously by regulators and governments. French health and safety authorities now plan to investigate NK603 and the study's findings and the European Food Safety Agency has said it will assess the research. Séralini is now demanding that all the data be assessed by an independent international committee, arguing that experts involved in the authorisation of the maize should not be involved.

We might include some of the peer-reviewed studies cited directly by Séralini himself, in response to accusations made against him in the popular press.

We could discuss the libel lawsuit Séralini won in 2011—against a group whose "critical conclusions" are referenced in relation to a 2007 paper.

Why is Food and Chemical Toxicology, under fire from the GM lobby for publishing Séralini 's work, now under the direction of a Monsanto collaborator?

Why did so many early critics of the study come from the Science Media Centre? And why isn't that affiliation mentioned in the Wikipedia article?

I hope we can make some real progress on this.

Thanks for your consideration. groupuscule (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible name change

Name change suggestion copy/pasted from longer post above; isolated from other suggestions in order to clarify discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Séralini affair → Séralini GMO research – Foregrounds the research itself rather than the controversy surrounding it. The current name flags Séralini's research as "discredited"—but this reflects PR spin, not actual consensus. Furthermore, the article we have now describes several studies by Séralini, yet the name refers to controversy surrounding only a single one. Finally, the name of the article is taken from a single magazine piece groupuscule (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose We need a title that makes clear that this article is about the 2012 publication and the brouhaha around it, including the way it was released. "Seralini Affair" is fine for that, although there are alternatives. Entitling the article the way you want to, will lead to a debate on GMOs themselves and will end up duplicating the long article that already exists, Genetically modified food controversies, which already has a section on the Seralini studies that this article expands on. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As I said above, we take a pretty consistent way of addressing articles of this type and is more neutral than saying scandal. This article is about more than the study and its reception. It is also about the Science by press conference approach and the books and films promised etc. Simply calling it "Séralini GMO study" hides the main reason this is notable. The reality is that the scientific consensus is highly critical of Seralini's work, the article is of course going to reflect that if it is to be neutral. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It is used in the media[1][2] so it is not an invented title. If the Pusztai publication is an affair then this one should at least be described as an affair as well. I agree with Wolfie that issues go well beyond this study. The media angle is presented, as it should be considering that the release of this study to them is part of what makes it so controversial. The Guardian one linked above is present as I type (not sure when it was added as have not been closely following the edits there). However, Wikipedia rightly favours scientific sources over media ones when it comes to reliability. Therefore this article should give more weight to the scientific side than the journalistic. As to your questions it is not really up to us to say why, but to report on what others have said. We should include Seralini's response to the criticism, which I guess the "Defense of the study and opposition to reaction of the scientific community" is for. I would suggest that this article still needs a lot of work, but the title is not an issue in my opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Per Jytdog, who originally said, and I agree, "it sounds like a James Bond movie". I've highlighted a quotation in the section below regarding the possibility that the scientific journals could be compromised... something we should consider. petrarchan47tc 04:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as the scope of the article (as it currently stands) is larger than just the research. (Personally, I would also avoid the term "GMO" but I can bring that up in a later discussion if it becomes relevant.) That said, I wouldn't object to a rename using the word controversy instead, or anything that broadened the scope to explicitly include the previous studies instead of keeping them in the background section. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The article isn't about "Séralini GMO research" Roxy the dog (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem, Wikipedia has the "Séralini controversy" article covered, but there is no main article for the study. This is far from neutral, encyclopedic treatment of an issue. petrarchan47tc 22:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not a problem at all. Millions of papers are published every year; very few are notable. What's notable here is the controversy around Séralini 's work. "Affair" is a perfectly good way of naming it; it's even quite lenient, since independent sources have used much more negative language. Would you prefer Séralini fraud or Séralini scientific misconduct controversy or Séralini hoax? bobrayner (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why we would need an article for an analysis of the study itself, sounds a bit pointless. We do have secondary sources which critically analyse the original paper, but they also talk about the affair in general as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article should be considered for deletion or suspension pending an investigation of possible infiltration by outside interests.

By order of the secret cabal psychopathic undercover mole king, take grand claims of conspiracy to WP:COI/N. IRWolfie- (talk)

According to the preamble, there has already been a decision to reject the request to delete this page and that is will be kept. Having read over most of this Talk "page" I respectfully submit that while it should not be deleted, the arguments for it have tremendous merit and that some serious problems remain. It is not inconceivable that the article itself should be deleted or suspended. I am very supportive of the basic arguments in the first section regarding Talk page deletion and have some observations of my own. I readily confess that they have a subjective element, but having confessed that I will argue that they should nevertheless be tolerated and used as motivation to investigate. I think that there is a probability that there is a genuine mole at work here. Anyone reading this who is familiar with the content of this Talk section -- and who is mature and experienced in legal conflict -- will likely recognize a certain unctuousness and time-and-effort dedication that is strongly suggestive of a funded agenda. I could be wrong, but reading the article and then the Talk section sets off all kinds of alarms. Quite frankly its the same kind of alarms I hear when I suspect I am dealing with a psychopath or very smart sociopath -- which, technically are difficult to distinguish. I am being very bold here, but before anyone jumps all over me for indulging my impressions, let me suggest that we are all -- and should be -- concerned when a substantial Wikipedia article can produce that kind of reaction in anyone. It deserves to be subjected to further consideration and/or investigation. An article that is so distinctly able to illicit concern over its objectivity is not an article that meets the standards of Wikipedia. I understand that Wikipedia relies on the dedicated participation of uncompensated individuals with subject matter expertise, public interest, personal idealism, and strong motivation to express themselves in an academic setting -- or some combination of these things. It also necessarily tolerates a degree of participation by people who, for ideological or professional reasons want to make a point or suppress certain ideas or information. In any case I think that those who toil altruistically deserve a system in which those who toil for the benefit of outside interests are revealed and eliminated from the process. All humans have biases. What I am worried about, and what I believe endangers the enterprise, are threats to objectivity that are more insidious than mere personal points of view. To wrap up, I think that this Talk "page" itself deserves to be preserved for posterity, but that the article itself should be considered for deletion or suspension until concerns about professional level infiltration are resolved. Again, I could be wrong. But I am obviously not alone in concluding that something is amiss here. I have proposed a possible explanation for what's been going on. I have put an evocative label on the possible explanation that may provoke steps to get to the truth. I am not afraid to go beyond innuendo if there is support for that, but I am reluctant to simply launch ad hominen attacks at anyone without ascertaining whether there is support for a concerted effort to get to the truth. I am hopeful that senior editors will respond to this input and will educate me as appropriate concerning more formal ways I might might carry forward my recommendation. Respectfully... scanyon (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC) If you have any specific suggestions as to the article please make them here. If you would like to nominate the page for deletion yet again, please do so. If you have specific concerns about conflict of interests, please make them clear here or take them to WP:COI/N. Nebulous accusations along the lines of "I think we've been infiltrated" are unactionable and imminently unproductive. a13ean (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC) It's OK - I believe anybody who has posted on this talk page has been issued with an official Wiki supplied Tinfoil hat. Roxy the dog (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

addition of infobox with information on seralini himself

User:Jinkinson added an info box with personal/professional information on Seralini, via these difs. After some consideration, I deleted them in this dif. My edit note states: "After some consideration, I am Reverting the Bold addition of the infobox. Plenty of people see this article as a personal attack on Seralini himself, which it is not. Infobox would maybe make it look that way even more to them. Please discuss on Talk". That's about all I have to say right now but I wanted to kick off the discussion. I am not saying Jinkinson was at all trying to make this article more personalized about Seralini; I am saying that it seems likely to me that people will take it that way, which is not helpful to the article's goal of describing the affair itself. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your decision to remove the infobox for the reasons you have given. Sunray (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This web page should be deleted immediately due to biased information

I would like to make an official complaint about this page as it is very biased and goes completely against the Wikipedia guidelines regarding such articles. Hog1983 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The wording of the article starts "the results were widely criticised by the scientific community" - they were also widely supported by the scientific community Hog1983 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Wording from the article: "the conclusions that Séralini drew from the experiments were widely criticized, as was the design of the experiments" - this is also very misleading as can be see by the amount of support from experts and in media articles here from around the world. Hog1983 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

'The paper was also refuted by many food standards agencies' this is misleading as actually the EU food standards agency EFSA has recently followed the guidelines of the Seralini study very closely in the suggested protocol for a long-term study on GMOs. Hog1983 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

'Other long term studies, which were publicly funded, have uncovered no health issues.' This is most obviously biased - as also many independent studies have found possible harm caused by GMOs: --Hog1983 (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)for full listwww.gmoevidence.com

Every mention of the 'scientific community' in the article states that they widely criticized the study - well the same can be written for 'the scientific community widely supported the study'

I have used a few sources in this complaint but that is because these sources gather together many other sources on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog1983 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't make legal threats or try to out wikipedia editors or you will surely not be welcome here yourself. I suggest you withdraw your legal threats, then we can discuss how to make the article better. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I will not be being taking legal action over this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog1983 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(Hog1983 has deleted a comment that might have been construed as an implied legal threat. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC))

And thanks for doing so. I dont believe you are the only editor with issues re this article being biased. I suggest, you be bold and edit the article itself along the lines you have suggested. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't. Roxy the dog (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Just saying dont isnt helpful, reasons are required. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

even when the reasons are better left unsaid?Roxy the dog (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

They are not better left unsaid cos that means you dont get to have a say. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Too late. I'm going to revert it. There is no consensus for that change.Roxy the dog (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Its never too late to explain yourself. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I attempted to make this article unbiased using independent references - it was immediately deleted - I would like an explanation why? Surely we want to keep Wikipedia unbiased regarding contentious issues like this one? I also only changed biased words and added specific balance - no drastic changes.Hog1983 (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Read all of this talk page. read WP:NPOV . Roxy the dog (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources you're citing don't appear to conform to the relevant sourcing guideline covering health and safety claims: WP:MEDRS. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I used EFSA as a source (European Food Standards Authority)and it was deleted - the other source used was to a group of leading international scientists? That reason doesn't stand up? I believe what we have here is called Edit Warring?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warringHog1983 (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That's right. Please don't do it again. Thank you .Roxy the dog (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor I do not take part in EWHog1983 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I see. Roxy the dog (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

One of Hog's changes re EFSA protocol

Hog added: "The EU Food Standards Agency EFSA was the least critical and has now validated Seralini's study with its own long-term study design.(ref)EFSA : http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3347.htm and GMO Seralini: http://gmoseralini.org/seralini-validated-by-new-efsa-guidelines-on-long-term-gmo-experiments/(/ref)

First of all, the "gmoseralini" source is self-published and not reliable (see WP:RS). Second, the statement that "EFSA was the least critical" is OR and should not be here. Most importantly, the new EFSA protocol discussed in the EFSA article does not replicate Seralini's - instead, it fixes many of the flaws for which Seralini's study was widely criticized. I know that Seralini is trying to spin this as pure vindication but it is not. The protocol is an effort to prevent another spectacular flame-out like Seralini's. It does show that the EFSA are taking his question about longer studies seriously. But it absolutely does not vindicate his study design nor his interpretation of the data from his two year study. There is a big difference.Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss but I refuse to have all of my edits deleted due to your 'biased opinions' -

1. a) Seralini followed many of the Monsanto study techniques - including using Sprague-Dawley rats (which was then criticized in this article). Many of the sources in the article are also not relaible (not reliable (see WP:RS):

Thomas Lumley for Stats Chat website. 20 September 2012 Roundup scare Erio Barale-Thomas (2013 ) Letter to the editor Food and Chemical Toxicology 53:473–474 and many others b) GMO Seralini is a citizen run group with no connection to Seralini - the source is legitimate as it uses sources from only reputable media and scientific institutions c) The EFSA statement includes 95% of all the Seralini protocol - I should know as I am a top expert on scientific protocols for GMO companies. d) You have stated that other long term studies, which were publicly funded, have uncovered no health issues. True but there have been many that have shown health issues - why the biased on a wikipedia article - www.gmoevidence.com for full list of studies which have shown health issues.

Please allow edits that are not biased! Wikipedia will support all of us for that.Hog1983 (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for coming to Talk! Quick notes:

a) Just formatting-wise: f you add a single colon ":" before your comment, it indents the comment a little to distinguish yours, from the one before. Two colons adds an extra indent (I put two colons before mine, to leave you space to add one), three does yet more indent.. when they get too far you can use a symbol. double-brackets-od-double-brackets to reset back out to the margin.

b) you write, "I should know as I am a top expert on scientific protocols for GMO companies." This means that you may have a conflict of interest with regard to this subject matter. Please read WP:COI. That is all I will say about that - just pointing this out as you are new here.

c) Editor's personal authority is irrelevant in Wikipedia (we love experts, but content must be generated based on published sources, not just what any editor says that he or she knows). So what is your reliable source, then, to support the statement that "The EFSA statement includes 95% of all the Seralini protocol"? I am not sure how one quantitates similarities or differences between protocols, in any case. Interesting question.

d) I didn't state anything about other long term studies.. not sure who you are talking to, there.

e) gmoseralini is a self published source - please see WP:SPS.

Thanks again for coming to Talk! Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not an expert on wikipedia - however I am an expert on what is biased and what is not and what you are not allowing as edits is biased. You are also disparaging a peer-reviewed scientific study that was published in a scientific journal that is now run by Monsanto's ex-Director. So the arguments in the article are both wrong and dangerous as they are not two-sided! Being an expert does not make me have a COI - that is a strange comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog1983 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I personally welcome experts and wish more would edit articles they are experts in. However, for good reason, saying you are an expert carries very little weight. The best way to demonstrate your expertise is by making good edits to the article (if you are an expert you should have no trouble finding reliable sources on the topic). AIRcorn (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Instead of turning this into an edit war it might be better to discuss here what of that content can possible be included and with what exact formulation. Certainly an EFSA report or statement can be cited in the article and it should be possible to come up with a correct summary for EFSA with which both parties can live here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The relevant EFSA review is already included in the article [3]. Hog was trying to use original research to make inferences from another EFSA report which does not mention this affair, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I want this article to be more balanced for this reason I am starting this conversation again:

a) Scientific support for Seralini

Reason for editing text will be to make it more balanced and saying that the Seralini study was both ‘supported’ and ‘criticized’ by scientists – I want consensus on this before edits are made: 1. http://aspta.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/NK603-20may2013.pdf - Brazilian scientists supporting Seralini in official letter to Brazilian food regulatory body 2. http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2012/11/14/science-et-conscience_1790174_3232.html 140 scientists supporting Seralini’s study 3. http://independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/ Open letter to support Seralini from worldwide scientists

b) Text in article: ‘Other long term studies, which were publicly funded, have uncovered some health issues.’ This is unbalanced as is shown on this directory of studies showing harm caused by GMOs: www.gmoevidence.com. I would like to remove this text. Group opinion please – not just editors of this page.

c) ‘Séralini had required that journalists sign a confidentiality agreement’ this was a method of study release that has been done by others – it was both supported and criticized in the press: www.gmoseralini.org.

All text about method of release being ‘only criticized’ should be removed if this is an unbiased article

d) The Sprauge-Dawley rat is used by Monsanto and all bio-tech industry in their experiments – so all reference to this as a problem should be removed: http://gmoseralini.org/criticism-sprague-dawley-rats-get-tumours-when-food-intake-is-unrestricted/

e) All references to media coverage should be balanced : there should not be a tone of only negative media coverage as the majority of media coverage was positive – please refer to directory of media coverage here: http://gmoseralini.org/category/media-coverage/

f) The argument in above comments that the new EFSA protocol does not mention the Seralini study is wrong – as it is 95% based on the protocol of the Seralini study – Just read both protocols to see: this is an article about this connection: http://gmoseralini.org/seralini-validated-by-new-efsa-guidelines-on-long-term-gmo-experiments/

g) GMOSeralini.org is not a Self-Published Source as quoted on this talk for reason for deletion of this source: http://gmoseralini.org/about-us/ - ‘Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, his colleagues, and the organizations with which they are affiliated have no connection with the owners or editors of this website and bear no responsibility for its content.’ ‘The GMOSeralini website is owned and maintained by a group of concerned citizens and scientists.’ ‘This site has independent expert editors.’Hog1983 (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your sources are all anti-GMO and self-published websites, they will never be accepted. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

a) Some scientists supported his study, but the vast majority found it to be incredibly flawed. We must present this in a balanced way and in this case that means highlighting that it was a very poor study.

b) That link does not enhance your argument. Can you point to a single peer reviewed study that demonstates harm. The closest you will get is this 1998 one and it found very little in the way of harm.

c) The method of release is by no means normal. He basically tried to prevent dissenting views by other scientists, which is probably due to the fact that he knew it was a weak study

d) It is horses for courses. Using a rat susceptable to cancer is good for short term studies as you are more likely to see a result if something is wrong. Using it for long term studies is bad as eventually most of the control rats are going to get cancer too (as happened in this study)

e) Balance does not mean presenting both sides equally. In media that reports science the response was overwealmingly negative.

f) When we look at primary sources and interpret them ourselves it is called original reasearch. A reliable secondary source is needed to say this.

g) Even if GMOseralini is not self published it is not a reliable source for the claims you are making. At best it could be used if attributed to GMOseralini, but it then becomes a question of why their views should be included. In fact it would have been better if it was published by Seralini as he is notable enough to have his properly attributed publishings presented here. AIRcorn (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a minor point, actually we don't present things in a balanced way, we aim to present it in a due way. Those aren't the same thing (see WP:GEVAL and the BBC quote). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

While I did link to WP:due in (a), I thought balanced sounded less wikispeak. I tried to clarify what I meant later in (e), but point taken. AIRcorn (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with every point above - Le Monde and a letter from the Brazilian head of food safety - are not anti-gm sourcesHog1983 (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

a)If we do a head count of scientists worldwide who supported the study in writing it is more than the number who did notHog1983 (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC) balanced view pleaseHog1983 (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

b) Dr. Judy Carman latest study peer-reviewed demonstrates harm - you acceptance of the study is not needed for it to be included as it is peer-reviewed - http://www.gmojudycarman.org, there are also many others : http://www.gmojudycarman.org - this is my point about you going into editing the article with an un-balanced and biased viewHog1983 (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

c) The release was done like that because of previous attacks on other scisntists who released studies which show evidence of harm from GMOsHog1983 (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

d) EFSA and the French government and the USDA will now only use Sprauge-Dawley rats in long-term experiments - your argument is invalid like the article itself.Hog1983 (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

e) In the 'media that reports science' argument is interesting as you include normal media articles : Forbes etc as references - which is always pro-gm - biased againHog1983 (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I want non-biased work on wikipedia and will now report this article to the wikipedia dispute board as no elements of non-biased editing will be acceptedHog1983 (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC) {{subst:NPOVN-notice}Hog1983 (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence on wikipedia discussion boards to say you only have to use pro-gm sources? GMOSeralini is a directory for people on this chat to find the supportive media coverage and scientists who supported Seralini - http://www.gmoseralini.org I did not suggest using it as a source in the article - although you could use CRIIGEN sources to show the source of the study and the view of Seralini.Hog1983 (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"WIKIPEDIA IS WRITTEN FROM A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." The article is clearly not neutral, not truthful, not balanced, not accurate, not reliable, and not independent... it is a piece of advocacy of a particular position, as well as being defamatory.Hog1983 (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We aim to use independent secondary sources where possible, see WP:SECONDARY, we use sources which are distanced from the dispute itself. Clearly "gmoseralini" is an advocacy website, unreliable per WP:RS. Be aware, language that invokes or appears to invoke legal threats can lead to blocks, see WP:NLT. Avoid the use of legal language as you are doing. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As I stated GMO Seralini is only being used in this talk to inform the editors who will now look at this article from the wikipedia dispute board, it will not be used as a source - you seem to ignore all serious discussion points - I have not made any legal threats and would not - I am afraid that your biased view of this article is endangering the reputation of wikipediaHog1983 (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no "wikipedia dispute board". NPOVN is simply a noticeboard. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the policies and guidelines which you have been linked to in this discussion. Also have a read of WP:AGF, WP:RGW and WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to read these guidelines but this does not change the fact that you are destroying one of the main pillars of Wikipedia and considering you obviously spend alot of time here I question your reasons for doing that - please consider answering my direct talk messages rather than going off on tangents.Hog1983 (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

When you have read the linked guidelines and policies, write a new proposal which conforms to those policies and guidlines. For short WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:OR. This essay may also be helpful: WP:SCIRS). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but using Wikipedia guidelines as a way of not answering serious questions does not hold any juice - please advise why Le Monde is not a reasonable source along with a letter from the head of Brazilian Food Safety?Hog1983 (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a primary source published by a fringe grouping in a newspaper. The sources we are using for the mainstream characterisation are of a much higher quality, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree - in fact the list includes some of the most respected scientists in France - was published in Le Monde - France's largest newspaper and regarding the Brazilian source it is from 6 of the 12 board members who decide on food safety in Brazil. Sorry but if you will not allow any edits I find it hard to understand why - because the sources that I am now quoting meet all Wiki guidelines which I have now read on your suggestionHog1983 (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record I remain entirely opposed to any of the proposed changes by this SPA editor. He has not made any attempt to understand the purpose of the wiki, and this page, and comes here with an obvious, clear, and unacceptable aim, i.e. to skew the NPOV away from consensus towards an extreme anti-GMO pov. He has been advised, warned, disciplined and remains unmoved by all the well meaning and tolerant editors trying to help. I think the only thing that would help @hog1983 now is to stop trying to influence this page for a while, and find another interesting, but less controversial subject on which to hone his editing skills, and wikiknowledge, otherwise he will become incredibly frustrated. Roxy the dog (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@roxy the dog - Does my opinion upset you? - I am learning that some editors are not happy with a balanced point of view! I am using good solid sources and using this talk to gather consensus - what else would you like me to do?Hog1983 (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a productive interaction, Hog and Roxy. Please discuss content, not contributors. Thx. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Alphabet soup

Just a reminder to veteran editors. Please do not pepper your comments with unlinked Wikipedia acronyms. There are newbies here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder - too easy to forget that. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you talkin to me? Are You Talkin To Me? I only used one. Roxy the dog (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)