Talk:Séralini affair/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Deletion of Section on Sprauge Dawley Rats - Editor Opinion Used

Hog1983 (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that this section is deleted as it is biased and factually wrong:

"Many claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study. 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).[33][34][35] The Séralini experiment lasted the normal lifespan of these rats, and the longer the experiment goes, the more statistical "noise" there is - the more rats get cancer naturally, regardless of what you do to them. So for the experiment to have adequate statistical power, all the groups - control groups and test groups - would have to include at least 65 rats per group in order to sort out any experimentally caused cancers from cancers that would occur anyway - but the Séralini study had only ten per group.[32] OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) guidelines recommend 20 rats for chemical-toxicity studies, and 50 rats for carcinogenicity studies.[36]:5-6 In addition, if the survival of the rats is less than 50% at 104 weeks (which is likely given the Sprague-Dawley rats used in the study) the recommended number of rats is 65.[32][34][35] Kings College London Professor Tom Sanders[37] wrote that since Sprague-Dawley rats are susceptible to mammary tumors when food intake is not restricted, data should have been provided about how much food the rats were fed (as well as the presence of fungus in the feed, another confounder). Sanders also wrote of this study, "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."[38] The Washington Post quoted Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University and food safety advocate: "'[I] can’t figure it out yet....It’s weirdly complicated and unclear on key issues: what the controls were fed, relative rates of tumors, why no dose relationship, what the mechanism might be. I can’t think of a biological reason why GMO corn should do this.....So even though I strongly support labeling, I’m skeptical of this study.'"[39] Maurice Moloney, among others, went on record wondering why there were so many pictures in the study, and in sympathetic news reports about it, of treated rats with horrific tumors, but no pictures of the rats in the control group."

Reason:

The National Toxicology Program in the US uses the same SD rat from the same source as Séralini’s rats (Harlan) for its long-term 2-year carcinogenicity and toxicology studies. None of these researchers or research programmes has been challenged over their use of SD rats.

Reference: National Toxicology Program. Toxicology/Carcinogenicity. 2012. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=72015DAF-BDB7-CEBA-F9A7F9CAA57DD7F5 Hog1983 (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal is original research. The content you wish to remove is sourced content. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment - what is original research?

Hi Hog1983, first let me say thank you for discussing rather than edit warring! You are clearly passionate about this, and I appreciate your restraint and patience in following Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Now.. to it. The link you provide above, says very clearly "The NTP long-term toxicology and carcinogenesis studies (bioassays) in rodents generally employ both sexes of rats (Harlan Sprague Dawley) and mice (B6C3F1/N hybrid) with three exposure concentrations plus untreated controls in groups of 50 animals for two years." As the article currently and clearly points out, the key criticism of Seralini's study design (not the interpretation of results which has other issues), is that his lab used only 10 SD rats per arm in a lifetime study. This was not a high enough N to make the data interpretable in a lifetime study. Again as our article points out, OECD guidelines call for 65 rats per arm in a lifetime study of rats like the SD rat; you have now provided a new source that we did not have, where it is clear that the NTP calls for at least 50 rats per arm when the SD rats in particular are used in a lifetime study of SD rats. You have just provided more support for the key flaw in the study and why it was rejected by the scientific community. I know that Seralini has said over and over "it is the same rat that Monsanto uses!!" but this is a diversion from the criticism that it is the overall design - length of study PLUS type of animal PLUS number of animals -- all three together - that rendered the data uninterpretable. 2 month study + SD rats + 10 rats per arm (what Monsanto and other companies submitting tox data do), you can get interpretable data; 2 year study + SD rats + 50 to 65 rats per arm (what OECD and NTP call for), you can get interpretable data; 2 year study + SD rats + 10 rats per arm (what Seralini did) you get noise that you cannot interpret. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to answer this in full if I may in a few hours - however in the mean time I would just like to point out that the Seralini study was not a carcinogenesis study - I will give more deatil shortly - I understand your view Jytdog but I would like to try and give you some more detailed information on the 10 rat assessment process and on why 50-65 was not required. Hog1983 (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Summary: This criticism hinges on the incorrect assumption that Séralini’s study was intended to be a carcinogenicity study. The critics say that Séralini used too few rats, of a strain prone to tumours, so the tumours seen may have occurred spontaneously and no conclusions can be drawn.

But Séralini designed his study as a chronic toxicity study, not a carcinogenicity study. The increase in tumour incidence was a surprise outcome. No existing data from the developer of NK603 maize, Monsanto, or elsewhere indicated that NK603 maize or Roundup were carcinogenic. Unless Séralini had employed Mystic Meg as his adviser, there was no reason for him to embark on a carcinogenicity study. A dedicated carcinogenicity study would have involved using five times more animals and would have made the study virtually impossible to afford by an independent academic research group.

The omission in this case is not Séralini’s but that of industry and regulators. Industry has failed to carry out carcinogenicity studies on GMOs or complete herbicide formulations like Roundup before releasing them onto world markets, and regulators have failed to require them.Hog1983 (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

After reading the guidelines closely I propose a serious and well thought out change to the text:

Old text	Proposed new text
Many claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study.	Some experts claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study while other experts backed his statistical methods.

References for change:

a) Deheuvels P. Étude de Séralini sur les OGM: Pourquoi sa méthodologie est statistiquement bonne [Seralini study on GMOs: Why the methodology is statistically sound]. Le Nouvel Observateur. 9 October 2012. http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/646458-etude-sur-les-ogm-une-methodologie-statistiquement-bonne.html?obref=obinsource

b) Saunders P. Excess cancers and deaths with GM feed: The stats stand up. Science in Society. 16 October 2012.Hog1983 (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not bulk-paste copyrighted material here. A link suffices. a13ean (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have permission to use this material and have not just used a link as I have changed order to make more sense for this discussion. Is that ok?Hog1983 (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the main text - I was just trying to use a reference for discussion - The source was not ISIS. It is GMO Seralini: http://gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralini-used-too-few-animals/ - which was written by a group of scientists and citizens. I do not agree that this source is not a note worthy source - as it is the only website on the internet that covers this subject exclusively and has multiple expert editors.Hog1983 (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In this context a reliable source is, essentially, a peer-reviewed journal, a book from an academic press, or a story in a newspaper that has an editorial board. Do you have any such sources ? Sunray (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hog1983, with respect to your comments above, I repeat the quote from the NTP piece you linked to, with emphasis added this time: "The NTP long-term toxicology and carcinogenesis studies (bioassays) in rodents generally employ both sexes of rats (Harlan Sprague Dawley) and mice (B6C3F1/N hybrid) with three exposure concentrations plus untreated controls in groups of 50 animals for two years." Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

See my comments in the previous two sections. Roxy the dog (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Roxy, I've read your comments in the two previous sections, but don't see any substantive comments. Talk pages are for discussion of content. If you concerns about a particular editor there are noticeboards where you can take them. Sunray (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sunray: I will try and find some more soild sources for this - before continuing with this specific conversation - asap: as they do exist just I will have to trawl to find them. Roxy - I don't understand why I am not allowed to put forward a factual based argument - I am a newbie and will be looking at other articles too. Hog1983 (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 07:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sunray no, newspapers are often unreliable when it comes to controversial science articles. Reliability is, as always, dependent on what you do with it. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think that this a very important point. It always depends how a source is used. A newspaper is good at reporting on events and summarizing issues. A newspaper article would not be used to counter findings of peer-reviewed research. Sunray (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie - But newspaper articles with a specific slant are used throughout the article - even though the majority of media coverage on this study did not have this slant, therefore - who decides which mainstream newspaper articles can and can't be used?

Examples of media coverage and science media coverage with a different slant than the ones used: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/gm-maize-and-its-health-implications-humans http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/corinne-lepage/ogm-une-etude-et-une-demarche-historiques_b_1907658.html http://www.medscape.fr/oncologie/articles/1452135/ http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Match-Doc-le-prix-de-la-v%C3%A9rit%C3%A9-17-janv-2013.pdf - This is a Paris Match article ignore the link.Hog1983 (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear on your point here. Citing specific examples is usually a good idea in discussions (i.e., use an example from the article to illustrate your question). It is difficult to deal in generalities. The answer to who decides: Wikipedia editors on the article talk page. Editors discuss issues and reach consensus (which is not necessarily unanimity, BTW). If the editors on a talk page cannot reach consensus, there are several options. A request for comment is often used. In such cases a clear question is crucial. Sunray (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to point out, using sources, that there is no consensus on any of the issues regarding this study - either in the scientific community, the media or ethe public - however I agree with you Sunray - I will stick to the exact pointHog1983 (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sunray I would like to use a solid source as suggested of the once voted top statician in France, Paul Deheuvels, explaining how the Spraugue Dawley statistics were used correctly due to the study design: This is in support of my suggested exact text change: http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/646458-etude-sur-les-ogm-une-methodologie-statistiquement-bonne.html?obref=obinsourceHog1983 (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if you used sources that have not been dismissed as inadequate before on this talk page, and were not from the gmoseralini website, which is of poor quality as regards reliability. As "a top expert on scientific protocols for GMO companies" you really should know all this.Roxy the dog (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Roxy the dog: I have clearly not used gmoseralini as a source except for a translated article from French - for the purposes of people who do not speak that language - as I stated when I used this link.Hog1983 (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hog, you have not responded to my comment above - I repeat it here with an addition: Hog1983, with respect to your comments above, I repeat the quote from the NTP piece you linked to, with emphasis added this time: "The NTP long-term toxicology and carcinogenesis studies (bioassays) in rodents generally employ both sexes of rats (Harlan Sprague Dawley) and mice (B6C3F1/N hybrid) with three exposure concentrations plus untreated controls in groups of 50 animals for two years." We now have two of the top scientific standard setting bodies in the world (OECD and NTP)- not just one guy -- who say that 50/65 of this type of rat are needed for a tox study of this length of time. And this criticism was repeated in the many, many assessments by national food safety bodies that reviewed the Seralini study. This is what we mean by giving weight according to the sources. Also even if we were to use something about Deheuvels' remarks, a) we need something in English, and b) they are of yet lower weight because it is an opinion piece published by one guy (an eminent one yes, but one guy) in a newspaper - much less reliable than standards or reviews issued by scientific bodies or a peer reviewed paper. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog : I'm afraid the conclusions of your mentioned scientific bodies are based on innacurate and not complete work on their part, that experts on protocols would support me on: OECD 453, the combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity protocol, requires ten animals per sex per group for the chronic toxicity phase (the same number used by Séralini), but 50 per sex per group for the carcinogenicity phase. An important point, given the controversy over what conclusions can or cannot be drawn from Séralini’s study, is that OECD 453 cautions that the interpretation of findings in the chronic toxicity phase relies on the larger number of animals (50 per sex per group) in the carcinogenicity phase of the experiment.Séralini did not have the resources to do a full-scale carcinogenicity study. Accordingly, he did not draw conclusions about carcinogenicity and did not perform a statistical analysis on the tumour incidence or mortality effects. He simply noted details of the tumour occurrence and growth in all groups, in line with rigorous scientific practice and the requirements of the chronic toxicity phase of OECD protocol. Please answer this point directly - thank you for you continued well intentioned communicationj on this matter.Hog1983 (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hog... it appears that this is your own analysis (which is "original research" - please see WP:OR) of how the standards should be applied to Seralini's studies. However, as mentioned, the many many national food safety bodies that reviewed the study - and published their reviews - found that 10 animals were not sufficient. Also, and I cannot help saying this -- if carcinogenicity was not Seralini's focus, why in the world did he feature those huge photos of tumorous rats at his press conference? That is just a shot - the real point is that published, very reliable sources contract what appears to be your OR on the numbers. Jytdog (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog - this is not my analysis - or original source - it is purely following the whole base for this study - which anyone who edits this page should be aware of - as without linking to the protocol for the experiment - all 'views' and 'reviews' of the study or the point we are now discussing are pointless: OECD 453: http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/41362977.pdf In fact I will start a new conversation on this as it is a huge point that has been missed out of the article.Hog1983 (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Page 5 Point 19. Here is very important to show why all criticisms in this article regarding Sprauge Dawley rats and Statistics should be removed: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9745301e.pdf?expires=1377263003&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=8E44A5A26113ACA898E0144E1057F95B, This is the source for removal of criticism of basic use of Sprauge Dawley rats: National Toxicology Program. Toxicology/Carcinogenicity. 2012. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=72015DAF-BDB7-CEBA-F9A7F9CAA57DD7F5Hog1983 (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a point 9 on page 5. --Roxy the dog (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry point 19.Hog1983 (talk) 13

02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I am unable to access your link. Roxy the dog (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hog, you are asking all of us to do original research WP:OR here to overturn what the most reliable sources - and many of them - have already stated in published responses -- they have already applied the standards to the Seralini studies and found the Seralini study wanting. This is not the place or the way to challenge their work. You need to bring reliable sources WP:RS of equal or greater authority to that say that the Seralini studies were properly designed. See also WP:WEIGHT. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Jyt I actually am asking for a link to the original source protocol for the experiment - not for any original rsearch - with specific page reference to be put on the article. The original protocol is the source of this whole article. This is not original research - it is a scientific protocol that has been quoted before in this Talk by you.Hog1983 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Before quoting a protocol you need to know what it says. Hog1983 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry we are in a section of Talk that you created, where you want to delete a section criticizing the study design in light of the standards - a section that is based on secondary sources. We cannot use the primary source that was available to Seralini and the study's critics as a basis for refuting either side... for an editor to do so, he/she would need to add some original research. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean Jytdog. Thta makes sense - however i hoped you personally managed to have a look so that you can see that not all the secondary sources used are accurate with their criticisms - it is important that we all go into scientific discussions with an open mind which I can see you doHog1983 (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Hog1983. I want to be honest with you -- I have read deeply in this area and I think Seralini's trajectory is tragic. He started out doing food safety and was even on the French GMO advisory board, and when he became concerned that trials were not long enough, he started (working with very little!) trying to argue that food from the GMOs that had been tested was toxic - pushing the data too hard from day one and getting roundly rejected. The more rejected he was, the more wild he became, over the past six years. I imagine that he would be very happy if regulations were changed such that much longer studies were required to obtain approval to market GM foods. That, I believe, is his goal. Since that viewpoint is outside the consensus, he has a high barrier to cross, to overturn the consensus. His 2012 paper could have done it, had he come with extraordinary data. He did not – he used only 10 rats per arm. Had he used at least 65, had he controlled for and recorded the variables that critics have brought up, had he disclosed the underlying data — in other words – earnestly sought to make a compelling case that his experiments were designed to discover reality as best the scientific method can do that and that he indeed had made findings about reality that his data fully support — I truly believe that he could have changed the consensus. That the critics speaking today would have had nothing to say.. The truth will out. But the 2012 paper was nothing like that. Now, Seralini made it clear that the work behind the 2012 paper cost 3M euros (the amount that journalists who breached his confidentiality agreement by getting other scientists’ opinions on the work would have been liable to pay). If he had done 65 rats per arm, the study would have cost 19.5M euros. Huge. So if you are in that position – what do you? Do fewer arms (say only 2) but with an adequate number of rats per arm? Do you perhaps publicize that you intend to do the definitive study on the safety of GM corn and that you are seeking 20M euros in funding to conduct it, and run a fund raising campaign first? (with the number of people who are worried (which is not insignificant!) I can only imagine this would have gone very well, and he may well have been able to get government funding for it) Do you pre-publicize your protocols to have a good faith discussion about what experimental design mainstream scientists would find acceptable, to eliminate that as a way to criticize the resulting data when you are done? He did none of those. Instead he did 10 rats per arm and had that horrid press conference with big photos of nasty rat tumors. And the result was another resounding failure to convince anybody in the mainstream — which was his goal – that he is right. I have no interest in vilifying Seralini or his team. I think he honestly believes that our methods for assessing GM food are not adequate, and he is worried that GM food on the market is harming people. These are important issues. I like iconoclasts. They often have great things to teach us, and humans in general are far too prone to living in bubbles and following habits of thought. However, to date, his lab has failed to make a compelling case that he is right and that the consensus should be overturned. Saying that, is not vilifying him in any way. So that is where I am coming from. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog, although I disagree with some of your points - I do agree that you are coming from a sincere angle. I would like at least some small edits to be made to the tone of the article and I think we will both agree that this is quite logical? - I think we would also both agree that some editors of this page are not 'helpful' to discussion? - the way that absolutely all edits are refused is a little annoying. However, I do agree that some criticisms of the study are understandable - it was not perfect (nor have any studies on GMOs been sadly). I am all for more solid testing from truely independent sources and I assure you this will be / is taking placeHog1983 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 13:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hog. With respect to "other editors" (by whom I assume you mean User:Roxy the dog - and btw I really hate it when editors make allusions to other editors like that - if you want to criticize somebody (and if the criticism is appropriate) then say their name and link to their username as I did here, so they are notified) - I agree that Roxy is writing too much about you and not enough about content. But you have to acknowledge as well that you have written some unwise, newbie-type things -- I tried to warn you on your Talk page that this is what happens when you don't know what you are doing yet and you get aggressive.). When someone is attacking you (or approaching that, I am not judging at this point), the best thing is to stay calm, respond to points related to content and policy, and if that fails, WP:SHUN. Roxy, I would say the same to you! But to the topic -- the key points in what I wrote above are supported by the weight of reliable sources (that the conclusions he has drawn from studies to date have have been rejected by the scientific community; that he has not overturned the consensus) - other stuff, like where I am guessing Seralini is coming from and my wishes about what he had done, are of course my own speculation and thinking. If you have reliable sources that say otherwise on the key points, I am all ears. If there are tone-related edits you would like to make, I am all ears as well, although I believe the current article is written with a neutral point of view as per WP:NPOV. But like I said, what I think is neutral tone, you might find non-neutral. Thanks again for discussing. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do mean Roxy the dog - sorry for not stating this - I have not been aggressive in anyway - just emotional in one comment - I have absolute certainty that this article is not written with a neutral point of view and would like some tone changes - using sources such as the Le Monde letter mentioned in previous section. I believe that the current media articles are also all biased on one side of argument Hog1983 (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Belgian BAC discussion

IRWolfie and I seem to have a problem about the Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council... 74.51.53.80 (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

due to my newbie status, I didn't realise the difference between "article talk" and "user talk". a better distinction should be made by editors. the editor with an incomprehension should not only invite the editor s/he attempts to revert, it may well be incumbent upon him/her to start an "article talk" page and link to it in the "edit summary". see "alphabet soup" above.

hi IRWolfie, just want to open a Talk about the BRD edit you, me and jytdog are having about the Seralini affair wiki. It centres on the Belgian BAC summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.53.80 (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

here is my suggested edit to "2012 study and release", that you dislike:

According to the Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council, "The starting point to design the study was the usual parameters for a 90-day toxicity study (OECD Guideline No 408) to which the authors added some additional parameters and prolonged biochemical and haematological measurements or disease status as recommended for combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies (they refer to OECD Guideline No 453). The OECD Guideline No 453 recommends that each dose group and concurrent control group intended for the chronic toxicity phase of a study should contain at least 10 animals of each sex..."

You previously stated in the first reversion 08:56, 22 August 2013‎ that " I don't see where http://www.bio-council.be/docs/BAC_2012_0898_CONSOLIDE.pdf says that" therefore I quoted directly (above).

Do you now see where http://www.bio-council.be/docs/BAC_2012_0898_CONSOLIDE.pdf says that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.53.80 (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would suggest starting an article talk page discussion. I'll address your comments there, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Because IRWolfie has failed to open a section on the *article* talk in 3 days, it falls to me.

Just a quick note, 74.51.53.80. Please read WP:BRD. If you add material and it is reverted, it is on you to start a discussion on Talk. (yes it is nice if the one who reverts starts the discussion, but the responsibility is actually on the one who made the initial change). This is a real encyclopedia and while in general your edits have been great, it is your responsibility to take the initiative to learn how things work. Please do not mistake the open nature of WIkipedia for a lack of policy and guidelines, or as an excuse to remain ignorant of policies and guidelines, especially when you are making extensive edits. But again, generally your edits have been helpful and compliant with guidelines and policies. Thanks for that! Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The onus to start a talk page discussion is always on the person making the change, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying IRWolfie. The onus is also on the person who objects to indicate how to start a discussion on the *article* talk page by linking to it. Thanks for your future correction of your stance, as it will make you a more valued contributor to these pages. 66.185.212.81 (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

summary to date

it is not unreasonable to insert a paragraph on "2012 study and release" on what Seralini tried to accomplish with his study, which is indicated here by a direct quote from a reliable source. 74.51.53.80 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have an issue with what you have done here, in that selecting that quote gives the impression that the design of the study was just fine with BAC, but the letter goes to criticize the application of those principles to the experiment that was actually done. Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with having the BAC letter used as a source - ity is mainly positive about the study design and alongisde the Le Monde letter mentioned in previous talk section - they should be used together to suggest some support for study.Hog1983 (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The conclusion of the Belgian letter is good reading -

"Given the shortcomings identified by the experts regarding the experimental design, the statistical analysis, the interpretation of the results, the redaction of the article and the presentation of the results, The Biosafety Advisory Council concludes that this study does not contain new scientifically relevant elements that may lead to reconsider immediately the current authorisation for food and feed use of gm maize NK603."

A sound endorsement if ever there was one, don't you think? --Roxy the dog (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

jytdog: the criticism of the study does come later, in the 'reactions to' section, whereas it is helpful in the '2012 article' section to have an unbiased source describe what Seralini had intended to show. how about we agree to add "The Belgian BAC (whose caveat is noted in the next section) ..." or words to that effect? 66.185.212.81 (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are the same person as 74.51.53.80 or not. In any case, I don't know if we want the article to say anything about Seralini's intentions per se, as the only person who knows his intentions is him (and whether any of us understands our intentions is a question) If when you say "intentions" you mean something about the relationship between the study design and the various OECD protocols, that is already covered in the Scientific Evaluation section. But perhaps I am not understanding you. Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

yes i am 74.* the problem as I see it is that certain editors prevent Seralini et al speaking for themselves because it is allegedly [[WP::OR]] to cite a primary source. If we accept that objection, the Belgian BAC--a reputable secondary source--provides a fair description. We need not go into questions of whether or not we understand our own intentions. That seems to me to be too postmodern an objection for the science we aim to portray with this article. 66.185.212.81 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I see the problem you are trying to address - you want a statement, maybe in the "2012 study and release" where the authors' application of the guidelines to the their study is stated. I went to the article and looked for something really clear, and unfortunately what they write is opaque. It says "With a view to address this lack of information, we have performed a 2 year detailed rat feeding study. The actual guideline 408 of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was followed by some manufacturers for GMOs even if it was not designed for that purpose. We have explored more parameters and more frequently than recommended in this standard (Table 1) in a long-term experiment. This allowed us to follow in details potential health effects and their possible origins due to the direct or indirect consequences of the genetic modification itself in GMOs, or due to the formulated herbicide mixture used on GMOs (and not glyphosate alone), or both. Because of recent reviews on GMOs (Domingo and Giné Bordonaba, 2011 and Snell et al., 2011) we had no reason to settle at first for a carcinogenesis protocol using 50 rats per group. However we have prolonged the biochemical and hematological measurements or disease status recommended in combined chronic studies using 10 rats per group (up to 12 months in OECD 453). This remains the highest number of rats regularly measured in a standard GMO diet study. We have tested also for the first time 3 doses (rather than two in the usual 90 day long protocols) of the R-tolerant NK603 GM maize alone, the GM maize treated with R, and R alone at very low environmentally relevant doses starting below the range of levels permitted by regulatory authorities in drinking water and in GM feed." I don't find that gives much clarity at all. And I have no idea what they meant in the sentence "Because of recent reviews...we had no reason to settle at first for a carcinogenesis protocol using 50 rats per group" This is the absolute key point of most critics, and the explanation is unhelpful. I would say that if there was anything helpful here, we could indeed have content based on it in the article, in that section - but sticking very very close to what the paper says, with no interpretation. That is an OK way to use a primary source. But I don't find anything here helpful! What do you see that is helpful? (btw my remark about intentions was kind of tongue in cheek, but for all I knew you really did want to say something about his intentions) Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Seralini et al would have profited greatly from a native English proofreader (or three). That's why I like the Belgian BAC summary in four lines, above. It's short and punchy. If you wish to modify it with 'caveat below' be my guest. I find that text humour is a minefield. Thanks for your helpful and gracious post. 66.185.212.81 (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Change in Text - Support by Scientific Community as well as Criticism

Hog1983 (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

After reading the guidelines closely I propose a serious and well thought out change to the text:

Old text	Proposed new text
and involved the experiments conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini; the results were widely criticised by the scientific community	and involved the experiments conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini; the results were both supported and criticised by different sections of the scientific community

References for this change are:

• [1] - Brazilian scientists supporting Seralini in official letter to Brazilian food regulatory body
• [2] - 140 scientists supporting Seralini’s study
• [3] - Open letter to support Seralini from worldwide scientists

Other mentions of criticism by scientific community should also be changed in the article to include 'support' for a more balanced view.Hog1983 (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The mention in the talk above is of 'scientific consensus' - based on the opinion of the editors - not facts - Please use references to larger lists of scientists that refute the study than I have just provided who support the study. There is no 'consensus'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog1983 (talk • contribs)

This isn't a number counting game. Your sources are still unreliable and thus irrelevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I would not oppose leaving the current statement, and adding, "Some scientists expressed dismay over the intensity of the criticism and some scientists expressed support for Seralini's study and conclusions." Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am very happy with the addition suggested by Jytdog - as it is even more accurate than my suggestion. How do we reach consensus on this?Hog1983 (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Regarding unreliable sources - IRWolfie - is Le Monde unreliable and the letter to CTnBIO from CTnBIO members unreliable?Hog1983 (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The first source may not be reliable, but Le Monde certainly is, and the Open Letter in the Independent Science News gives an English version of the argument. Thus the two sources together, seem to me to support the point that the study by Seralini et. al. has been criticized in the scientific community. I think that the proposed wording heads in the right direction, but probably needs a bit more work. A peer reviewed study shows that a segment of the scientific community supports a particular point of view. No need to repeat that. What other issues need to be addressed to get consensus? Sunray (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Le Monde source is already there and has been for some time. AIRcorn (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the only consensus that needs reaching now is what the text changes will be exactly - I personally support balancing all mentions of the scientific community - saying they both criticize and support the study - using the 2 links provided to link to mentions of 'support', that the majority here agree with.Hog1983 (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC) If I have a go at editing in that way - I am happy for someone to then edit what I have suggested?Hog1983 (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hog1983 I know that you are passionate about this, but consensus takes time. Please be patient and give other editors who are working time to respond and discuss. It is often not a rapid process.Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing I realize that this is not a rapid process and am here to discuss when needed. Thank you JytdogHog1983 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There needs to be consensus on the wording and that needs to be done according to WP standards. With contentious issues, that can take time. I find that it is sometimes easier (and faster) to stay close to what sources actually say. By that I mean a close paraphrase, or an actual quote, from each side. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

See my comments in the previous section. Roxy the dog (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sunray regarding keeping close to the sources - My belief is that there is too much 'opinion' in this article in general - The sources need to be balanced on the page to - some pro-GM, some anti-GM seems fair - as there is no consensus in the scientific world or in the general public on this study and the issue in general.Hog1983 (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hog1983 you have still have made it very clear that you have come here with an agenda to make the article much more positive/supporting with respect to the Seralini study, and you have not made it clear (at all!) that you understand that in Wikipedia, we do not do "fair and balanced" as you describe it above and have said elsewhere. Wikipedia does not give various points of view equal weight -- Wikipedia gives different points of view different weights, based on reliable sources. The global warming article does NOT give equal weight to climate change deniers, for example, but does mention their perspective. Again I am really happy you are talking instead of edit warring and there is a lot we can hopefully talk through, but it will be sentence by sentence and source by source - and to say it again, the goal is not balance. It is much harder than that. I look forward to working with you, and hopefully in a civil manner! Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog: I understand completely that wikipedia does not have to show balanced views. I would like to point out that I am not suggesting it has to be balanced for the sake of balance - I am suggesting it has to be balanced due to the lack of 'consensus' in both the public, media and scientific communities. Suggesting that there is a 'consensus' in my view is factually wrong - as I have shown with solid sources in this chat. I like your approach to 'talk' and I will continue to engage with you on this subject. Suggestions that I 'have an agenda' are wrong ' I have a point of view' that is based on fact and I am willing to talk about.Hog1983 (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC) 07:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that I am not only going to concentrate on this article - but being new to Wikipedia - this is the first article I have discussed in detailHog1983 (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)07:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is definately a lack of consensus in the public and media communities and it is something I think we gloss over here a bit. It is most likely because many people who edit Wikipedia generally favour the scientific consensus and that consensus is pretty strong when it comes to GMO saftey in general (we just had a big discussion about this issue here). When it comes to this particular study it is even stronger. That is what is meant by keeping everything due. We can present the anti GMO side, but when it comes to the science we must give more weight to the scientific consensus.

As to the new sentence I would probably support something along the lines of "although 140 scientists expressed dismay over the intensity of the criticism and supported Seralini's study and conclusions in a letter to the French newspaper Le Monde." This would complement the current Le Monde paragraph in the article body. AIRcorn (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

With the links at the start of this conversation I think this is solid proof that there is no 'scientific consensus'@ Aircorn. Regarding the senetnece I think a both the 'independent science news' source and the Le Monde source should be mentioned - and the 'support' sentenece should be placed next to the sentences which mention 'scientific criticism'Hog1983 (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)10:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi hog - very recently, we ran a wikipedia "request for comment" on the issue of scientific consensus on the relative safety of genetically modified food that is currently on the market - the link to that is here. The result was "consensus was that the statement is reasonable given editors' evaluations of the sources. "Broad scientific consensus" was most strongly supported by evidence that large-scale medical and empirical research organizations such as the AAAS, WHO, and AMA have issued statements that are consistent with the general opinion of the scientific community" Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the letter published in Le Monde is adequately covered in the body of the article, and it would be giving it far too much weight to further emphasise it higher up in the article.--Roxy the dog (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not only suggest the Le Monde source but others too above that show that there is no 'scientific consensus' - therefore the mention of 'criticism' should be balanced with 'support' throughout the article Hog1983 (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There already is due balance in the article, your references do not show there is no scientific consensus. Therefore your conclusion is not viable. --Roxy the dog (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Roxy the Dog - I purely think that you are wrong and other people in this section of talk agree that a text change is neededHog1983 (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Who would that be? Roxy the dog (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Sunray @Jytdog @ircorn have all entered the converstaion and offered possibilitiesn - you have not Hog1983 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hog, I think it is time you moved away from the "no scientific consensus" as all the evidence, plus the official Wiki opinion in Jytdogs post, is against you. -- re text changes proposed, possibilities, perhaps. Agreement, not yet. --Roxy the dog (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments Roxy the dog are of no use to me or this section of talk as you do not take part in conversations in a positive manner, scientific discussions deserve a scientific approach.Hog1983 (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your scientific approach over the last few days has been amazing. Ignoring the evidence, poor sources, and synthesis. Well done. On a positive note I can happily report that 140 scientists writing a letter to Le Monde is a homeopathic drop in the ocean of scientific consensus. That's a scientific approach.--Roxy the dog (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This 'talk' is not for abuse or comments that might offend - please refrain from this tone and discuss correctly as per the rules on Wikipedia, which I can not quote but know they are there. Can we please get back to discussing possible changes / or not to text and reasons for it.Hog1983 (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way Hog, if you read the Le Monde letter, the scientists involved do not support Seralini's conclusions, pointing out serious flaws in the paper. They were certainly objecting to the way the study was received though. You should strike this from your bullet points of support for Seralini. --Roxy the dog (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

- Bad interpretatioin Roxy the dog - I will leave others to decide what is the correct route to take. I will not be commenting further in these discussions. I just hope that the serious wikipedia editors here see that there is the possibility that science and the science media is sadly being taken over by big business and this is a complete disatser for independent science in general. Those funded by big business or blinded by them will obviously not agree with me - sadly human nature - good luck everyone and I hope you are 100% sure that you are doing the right thing - as this is a game that involves all of us. When you have seen deaths and severe illness in the Phillipines related to GM Maize pollen tests or a rise of birth defects of over 900% after excessive Roundup spraying of villages amongst GM crops in Argentina you would change your mind as I did. Please think very deeply. I had the same arguments with people over Agent Orange in the 1980s - look what happened! Hog1983 (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how does this tirade relate to our article on the Seralini Affair? - If nobody objects, I would like to figure out how to deal with Hogs two templates on this page, and remove them. Roxy the dog (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I was advised to place that template on these discussions by the mediation board so that would be unwise Roxy the dog - and as is stated in Wiki rules personal opinions are allowed in talk sections - which is what I was sharing. I find it quite funny that Roxy the dog advises me to learn wiki rules as a newbie - I go away learn wiki rules and then they decide to criticize every comment I makeHog1983 (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Link me to that mediation board advice please. Thank you.--Roxy the dog (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention to communicate with you further on any matter on this or any other page I may edit - I have requested outside comment purely because of your unhelpful behaviour - I will happily communicate with other editors Hog1983 (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

@hog. If you are going then OK, but if you are staying, can you please explain what you meant by the phrase " I have also suggest that you and Jytdog may be more than similar." which is still in the page history? Thank you. --Roxy the dog (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please can we have some other editors commenting on this page and suggesting possible changes to textHog1983 (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 00:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Old text should stand. The new text would give equal validity to a fringe position which would violate WP:VALID. Séralini's study is overwhelmingly rejected in the science community. Overall support for the study is minimal. There is no major scientific organization that has given any credence to Séralini's study. BlackHades (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Seralini validated by new EFSA guidelines on long-term GMO experiments

http://gmoseralini.org/seralini-validated-by-new-efsa-guidelines-on-long-term-gmo-experiments/

See also "Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup- tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23146697

This can be read in full here: http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Seralinial-AnswersCritics-FCT_2013.pdf198.189.184.243 (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is some content you wish to propose for the article, please do so. Thanks. The GMOseralini site is not a reliable source and the opinion piece by Seralini is not either. The EFSA document is interesting but for it it be included in Wikipedia we need a neutral, reliable source interpreting it and relating it to the 2012 publication. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog is correct. For something of this nature, we need the material interpreted in a reliable source. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC))

I agree with those who agree with Jytdog, such as AfadsBad. The specific problems with the IP's argument are that it ignores that the EFSA has a whole webpage dedicated to debunking the Seralini paper, in which they state: "EFSA’s initial review found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate. The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested." [4] This would seem to contradict claims that the EFSA said the Seralini paper was right. Jinkinson (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The "opinion piece" by Seralini is published in a reputable journal, and addresses all the criticisms - it certainly warrants inclusion. The discussion of the EFSA admission I linked to essentially means this - that in spite of the selective vitriol they issued towards Seralini, his protocols are ultimately valid.

The Corporate Europe Observatory, an independent EU corporate watchdog group, when writing about the EFSA response to Seralini, concluded, "EFSA failed to properly and transparently appoint a panel of scientists beyond any suspicion of conflict of interests; and it failed to appreciate that meeting with Europe’s largest biotech industry lobby group to discuss GMO risk assessment guidelines in the very middle of a EU review undermines its credibility.": http://corporateeurope.org/news/how-efsa-dealt-french-gm-study-which-lessons

That article is fascinating for the depths of conflicts of interest it reveals with the EFSA. The following is also relevant, as it highlights conflicts of interest not confined to this case: http://corporateeurope.org/efsa/2011/11/approving-gm-potato-conflicts-interest-flawed-science-and-fierce-lobbying

Harry Kuiper, who chairs the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the EFSA since 2003: http://binas.unido.org/research/furarn/kuiper.php, also is problematic - Appendix 2, p. 16 of the following report, relevant to the above item pertaining to 2011, notes the major conflicts of interest he has, including with the ILSI, a biotech company front, and more blatant conflicts of interest of the other EFSA panelists: http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/amflora_coi_report_2011.pdf

The following letter notes a problem particularly with regards to Kuiper: http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/PR_Ombudsman_Complaint_Kuiper.pdf that links to a complaint: http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/Testbiotech%20complaint%20EU%20Ombudsman_Kuiper_1.pdf, which has an interesting paragraph (p. 3) - "While in October 2010 his DOI [Declaration of Interest] stated he would have affiliations with ILSI from 2000 "till now" (attached), his DOI in March [2011] stated affiliations with ILSI till 2005 (attached)."

Pages 17-18 of the ILSI's 2011 annual report shows very blatantly that the board of trustees is in conflict of interest - with members including (and trustees being members of) Monsanto, ADM, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Nestle, McDonalds, BASF, etc, etc: http://www.ilsi.org/Documents/ILSI_AR2011_rFinal.pdf

The ILSI has a weasel-worded way of being an advocate while denying that it is an advocate, stating that "Advocacy of any kind is strictly limited to the use of science as an aid in decision-making.": http://www.ilsi.org/Pages/Scientific-Integrity.aspx

The aforementioned organization, Corporate Europe Observatory, produced it's very own report all about the ILSI "The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a corporate lobby group", which explores the details and minutia of the fact of conflict of interests with ILSI membership and specific cases where it has exerted pressure in ways showing that it is an industry front group: http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/ilsi-article-final.pdf

The following report, "Conflicts on the menu: a decade of industry influence at the European Food Safety Authority" really sums everything up. It notes the EFSA's denial of that problem and refutes that denial: http://corporateeurope.org/efsa/2012/02/conflicts-menu198.189.184.243 (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, if there is some content you wish to propose for the article, please do so. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not ([please see WP:NOT) a billboard or news site. Quick comment on your notes above - if you want to challenge the reliability of any source currently used in the article, you can bring that source to the reliable source notice board Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard; for sources used to support anything related to health, the more appropriate board is Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) - and of course do post info here that you are doing that. I think in either place you will find little traction for ruling out any source based solely on the affiliation of an author.Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I desire that Seralini's response to criticism, published in a mainstream journal, and the discussion linked to showing how the EFSA, in spite of its attack on Seralini, has indirectly validated his protocols (which, from my understanding, comes not just from a random source, but from a source connected to Seralini - and some of the other papers linked here are also of interest in that regard: http://gmoseralini.org/research-papers/) - all be included in the article. And also, conflicts of interest are a major issue, not one of mere "affiliation", and the information provided in this section of the talk page should be enough for anyone to see the severe problem, and consequent corruption, that exists in the EFSA. We have enough material here to note that also in the article. This is also interesting: http://gmoseralini.org/faq-items/what-was-the-reaction-to-the-study-2/ - the section entitled "support" is worth noting (including the compilation of letters of support he has recieved from other scientists: http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/supportletters-seralini-1.pdf, http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/supportletters-seralini-2.pdf) - I desire that some of the sources that are footnotes to that article also be used in this wikipedia article, as well as some of sources that are footnotes in that article informing the other information regarding the connections of the critics to the GM industry.198.189.184.243 (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggest a sentence from his reply that should be added to the article. Just a sentence, no commentary from you. Thanks. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

This is difficult to do, since there were many criticisms he he attempted to deal with - table one of the full text of the article gives a glimpse of this: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512008149# - a better choice would be to have a "response to criticisms" section, with the sentence being (this is derived from the header of each section of the response) - "Seralini attempted to answer and refute all the criticisms of his original study in a March 2013 article in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, where he provided a table summarizing the criticisms and giving responses, and focused in particular on the relevance of the study's scientific context, focused on the originality and limits of the experimental design of the study, gave a defense of the choice of the strain of rat used in the study, provided a focus on statistical analytical methods and outcomes, and focused on the pertinence of the results of the study." Then I would suggest linking to this via cite PMID as the reference at the end of that sentence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23146697198.189.184.243 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, just suggest text to insert! I agree that his response can be included in the article, in context, as a primary source, but, once you have sold something, it is tme to stop trying to sell and deliver the product. What and where? --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)) And yes, it will be cited. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

In a response to criticisms section, to be put at the very end of the article - I propose including the single sentence suggested above beginning with "Seralini attempted to answer", that summarizes his response to criticisms, as focus on just one issue doesn't cover the breadth of criticisms, and he attempts to respond to several criticisms.198.189.184.243 (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition, please comment

"Seralini attempted to answer and refute all the criticisms of his original study in a March 2013 article in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, where he provided a table summarizing the criticisms and giving responses, and focused in particular on the relevance of the study's scientific context, focused on the originality and limits of the experimental design of the study, gave a defense of the choice of the strain of rat used in the study, provided a focus on statistical analytical methods and outcomes, and focused on the pertinence of the results of the study."

It gives very little content, just describes the article, and, as such, is not inappropriate until the article's notability is established. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

Do you maybe mean, "is not inappropriate"? :) I think even that is too long. I would be OK with something much more simple like, "Seralini has responded to some of the criticisms and defended his refusal to release his raw data." The word "some" is important.Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice mindreading, I am on mobile. Yes, your sentence, mentioning article and source would be better. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

 Done Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

actually, even shorter is better: "Seralini has responded to some of the criticisms" - the last bit is redundant.Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

In the article, Seralini stated "Many critics argue against our refusal to release all the raw data generated in our study. This is a very unusual request when we clearly stated that we plan several other papers out of this data set. Our study was not performed for regulatory purposes. However, due to the social impact and for full scientific understanding of the potential risks associated NK603 GM maize and R, we will release our raw data if the regulatory agencies that have taken industry data into account in their approval of their products also release the data pertinent for environmental and health risk assessments, in particular their longest toxicological tests on mammals, as we have indicated in our correspondence with EFSA. As a first step to this end, we have communicated the raw data underlying the data presented in Figs. 1 and 2 to the French food safety agency (ANSES), and answered their questions on experimental design and results, including analysis of food composition and mycotoxin content, etc."

I think what he contends at this point is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Let's limit it until we get commentary in RS on this article. It will come. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

I think an update of the edit should be made to reflect this.198.189.184.243 (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, do not put long quotes here from the article. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. And this publication is a) an opinion piece and not a scientific article and b) more importantly, a primary source, so we cannot put a lot of WP:WEIGHT on it. thanks Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that an update has been made. It is appropriate in my opinion.198.189.184.243 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

He was criticized for not releasing the data. The content "He responded to some of the criticisms" includes that. I do not agree that the content should be any longer than that, as there a million "for examples" that could be pulled out of the article, and pulling any one out becomes cherry-picking. Do you see what I mean, User:Jinkinson? Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Tryptofish... Trypto, I think that the Nov 2012 publication should be given little WP:WEIGHT and putting it in its own section gives it quite a bit, and is practically begging editors to come add more content based on that piece. See what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

See how fast I respond? Yes, that's a good point. At the same time, I still think that what Seralini said should come first in the section, not last. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

And earlier section headers suffered from logorhea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedyfish, you are indeed. Yes I agree that the whole article could use tightening.Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On a related point, I don't mind deleting the sentence that was presented as an example, because that sentence didn't really say very much. However, I think that we need some sort of detail, beyond just saying that he presented a response to the criticisms. We have to give some sort of indication of what the response was. I'm not sure what it should be, but there ought to be one more sentence about the specifics. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes a well crafted sentence, preferably a quote, is fine, but not much more until we can examine other sources. Suggestions'? --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

I see the point; just made a change clarifying that the response was a defense.Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's an improvement, but it still strikes me as too sketchy. I wish I could suggest something specific, but I'm coming up blank for now, sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You still think it is sketchy? I think we are limited in what we can say, and I think it is currently accurate, neutral, and limited until we can find neutral reliable sources discussing it in the literature. I think you all did a good job. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC))

notability of other sources

gmoseralini.org is notable. It is cited in 6 articles in google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gmoseralini.org&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

and 2 articles in google news (inclusive of the website itself, but also another news source): https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=gmoseralini.org&oq=gmoseralini.org&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.3922.6769.0.6969.15.3.0.12.12.0.45.129.3.3.0...0.0...1ac.1.KQJuCcHzNAI

it contains letters of support from many other scientists (http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/supportletters-seralini-1.pdf, http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/supportletters-seralini-2.pdf), as well as other relevant material, provided above.

testbiotech.de is notable. It is cited in 23 articles in google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gmoseralini.org&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

corporateeurope.org is very notable. It is cited in 435 articles in google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=corporateeurope.org&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

Because of this. I will propose other edits incorporating those sources. For now I will give the following suggested addition:

We know that the Corporate Europe Observatory, the most notable of these other sources, when writing about the EFSA response to Seralini, concluded, "EFSA failed to properly and transparently appoint a panel of scientists beyond any suspicion of conflict of interests; and it failed to appreciate that meeting with Europe’s largest biotech industry lobby group to discuss GMO risk assessment guidelines in the very middle of a EU review undermines its credibility.": http://corporateeurope.org/news/how-efsa-dealt-french-gm-study-which-lessons

The header of that article states that: "it has been difficult to sort legitimate criticism of the study from industry spin."

My suggestion for an addition to the wikipedia article is thus as follows. This uses a pseudo-wikipedia code having the reference as a link in the parentheses:

The Corporate Europe Observatory argued that the EFSA group evaluating the Seralini paper was ridden with conflicts of interest, and that as a result, it is difficult to sort legitimate criticism of the study from industry spin.(http://corporateeurope.org/news/how-efsa-dealt-french-gm-study-which-lessons)198.189.184.243 (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, gmoseralini fails WP:RS - saying it is "notable" misses the point of the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. With respect to your discussion of "conflicts", I have said this gently before but I will say it plainly now. The notion that any scientist with any connection to industry is hopelessly conflicted does not fly on Wikipedia -- it is not mainstream scientific discourse, but is rather WP:FRINGE and does not belong in Wikipedia. Maybe one day the scientific community will reject corporate science and scientists but that is not true today. Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - it deals with the consensus as it stands today. No way does that content come into Wikipedia! Finally, the sentence you want to add fails WP:NPOV. Think about the mirror statement. "Forbes Magazine noted that Seralini "has made a specialty of methodologically flawed, irrelevant, uninterpretable — but over-interpreted — experiments intended to demonstrate harm from genetically engineered plants and the herbicide glyphosate in various highly contrived scenarios", and that as a result, it is difficult for the public to sort legitimate scientific criticism of GMOs from anti-GMO spin. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/)" That is the equivalent statement from the opposite side. Neither are OK in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Just want to add, 198.189.184.243, that I believe you are wanting to do good and help the world. But the kind of content you want to add is not acceptable in Wikipedia, which is mainstream. The day that Science and Nature stop accepting papers from corporate scientists you might have a leg to stand on, but not today.Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Struck my comments. The article already says "The German research group Testbiotech, which opposes GMOs and which believes that regulators have been captured by the biotech industry, posted a report critical of the EFSA's reaction to the study as not applying the same standards to studies submitted by industry as it did to Seralini's study.[63][64]"" So the concern you wanted to raise, has already been raised. I am not in a mood to fight a battle to remove content already in the article, and the framing there ("which believes that regulators have been captured by the biotech industry") makes it clear that testbiotech is outside the scientific consensus.Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

198.189.184.243, NEVER interfere with another user's comments on Talk. NEVER. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your points are noted, and I appreciate your comment. I still think that the Corporate Europe Observatory point about "EFSA ... meeting with Europe’s largest biotech industry lobby group to discuss GMO risk assessment guidelines in the very middle of a EU review" is worth discussing, and that there might be a stronger case for COI when we consider that. Thus the addition could be modified to state - The Corporate Europe Observatory has raised concern over the fact that some EFSA staff involved in the review of Séralini's study were invited in a luxury hotel in Brussels to discuss GMO risk assessments at a conference organised by Europabio, a biotech industry lobby group, in the middle of their review of Seralini's work.(http://corporateeurope.org/news/how-efsa-dealt-french-gm-study-which-lessons)198.189.184.243 (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not intend to interfere with your comments. If I did, it was accidental. Apologies for any unintended bad feelings.198.189.184.243 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. About your text above, I do understand very well that you think is important that EFSA met with Europabio, but creating conspiracy theories out of that is not how Wikipedia works. Now if the EFSA panel members were convicted of taking bribes from EuropaBio to make a favorable report, and this was reported in a reliable source, that would of course be meaningful. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I believe that the Corporate Europe Observatory's status per google scholar makes it at least as notable as testbiotech (and I don't see anything suggesting it is unreliable). I believe it at least has the same status at the testbiotech item already in the article, and therefore I believe (given that it doesn't explicitly speculate about bribes - and by the way, I am not proposing removal of EFSA commentary from the article because of the arguments these groups ) that right after the testbiotech item should be added, from a group more notable - per google scholar - than test biotech, the sentence The Corporate Europe Observatory has also argued that the EFSA staff evaluating the Seralini study, and the evaluation of the study itself when compared to its earlier evaluation of Monsanto's work, had redflags suggesting bias.(http://corporateeurope.org/news/how-efsa-dealt-french-gm-study-which-lessons)

This covers the full breadth of their critique, which is not limited to those particular items.198.189.184.243 (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Google scholar does not give cred. Do an evolution search some time. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

However, google scholar does list many sources from reliable journals that cite that source, making it worthy of inclusion.198.189.184.243 (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There are several big groups that embrace these fringe theories of regulatory corruption with respect to GMOs. Where does it stop? You like corporateobservatory, someone else likes gmfreecyru, somebody else likes greenpeace... not to mention all the little ones. btw google scholar is not a measure of anything scholarly. there is nothing scholarly about corporateobservatory, for example. Again, wikipedia is not about "balanced" - we don't present every view on every topic and give them all equal weight (see WP:WEIGHT). In the mainstream world, there is nothing bad about industry ties, per se. The puritanism of testbiotech and corporateobservatory is radical. Additionally, this (like testbiotech) is a self published article - see WP:SPS. Not reliable. But anyway, when I do a google scholar search on it, I get zero results. Here is the search: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22How+EFSA+dealt+with+French+GM+study%3A+what+lessons%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33 I am now curious - what is the search you are doing, 198.189.184.243?Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Just list the sources, then. It doesn't matter what search engine you use, so no need to bring that up. You have something to offer, but we may not be listening so well because we cannot see the offering in the midst of all these outside issues. Google scholar does not matter, sources are not reliable simply because they are in a scholar search, so we don't need any information or discusiion about google scholar. So, where, RS, is this discussed? --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

I did a general search of "corporateeurope.org", and found articles citing corporateeurope.org sources published in reliable journals: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=corporateeurope.org&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5198.189.184.243 (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but, so what? --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

This is the "so what". The issue is not about "corporate science". It is about the purported independence of regulators: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/independence.htm - vs. the actual reality. The EFSA page I just linked to states "involvement in industry-funded research does not necessarily constitute a conflict of interest provided that the research does not relate directly to the topic being considered by the Panel or Working Group", but in many cases, (e.g. - with GMOs, as has been shown), this involvement is in areas that directly pertain to the topics being considered by the regulators

Furthermore, as I noted before, the following letter notes a problem particularly with regards to Kuiper: http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/PR_Ombudsman_Complaint_Kuiper.pdf that links to a complaint: http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/Testbiotech%20complaint%20EU%20Ombudsman_Kuiper_1.pdf, which has an interesting paragraph (p. 3) - "While in October 2010 his DOI [Declaration of Interest] stated he would have affiliations with ILSI from 2000 "till now" (attached), his DOI in March [2011] stated affiliations with ILSI till 2005 (attached)."

In courts there is a principle called witness impeachment that certainly applies to these regulators when we consider the discrepancy between purported independence, and the actual fact, and furthermore, one leading regulator changing the story so as to appear more independent.

So that is the problem as it pertains to this article.

On a related note, there is the problem exposed by Walter Burien (http://www.cafr1.com/) and a proponent of his work in the film "the Great Pension Fund Hoax" (http://www.gnosticmedia.com/clint-richardson-interviews-jan-irvin-for-tme-radio/) - bringing attention to the elephant in the room of hidden in plain sight government ownership of major portions of multinationals, showing stores of wealth that reveal a discrepancy between alleged wealth and real wealth of government, and that government and industry are a sort of fusion. This is well documented by Burien and his proponent who made the video, is independently verifiable, and has implications going beyond most "conspiracy theories" (that word was mentioned here when referring to regulators) out there - it reveals a reality worse than them and a solution going far beyond temporary solutions to conspiracies. It is fully verifiable, and should be the major focus of debate. That is an issue going beyond the problem I outlined, but it is far more relevant.198.189.184.243 (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Time to take your soapbox elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia. Bye. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC))

My final point is that for the reasons I have given, which are valid, my suggested edit The Corporate Europe Observatory has also argued that the EFSA staff evaluating the Seralini study, and the evaluation of the study itself when compared to its earlier evaluation of Monsanto's work, had redflags suggesting bias.(http://corporateeurope.org/news/how-efsa-dealt-french-gm-study-which-lessons)

deserves inclusion after the testbiotech item.

The other items are relevant as they give insight into the bigger story, going beyond mere conflict of interest.198.189.184.243 (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

afasbad and i had an edit conflict - what I wrote was "Please, stop using this Talk page as a soapbox. Thanks." Please limit discussion here, to discussion of content about the "Seralini affair" article. I will add, again, that the "anybody with a connection to industry is tainted and cannot be trusted" concept that corporate observatory and testbiotech work in, is not mainstream and cannot be given a lot of weight in the article. You seemed to understand that above, but now are back with the same content and same source. But it is as non-mainstream today as it was last week. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And I want to add, that you actually brought a source called gnosticmedia to try to make an argument that something is mainstream....where I can buy books called "Astrotheology & Shamanism"? 198.189.184.243, everybody is free to think and enjoy what they like and give authority to whomever they like, but editors on Wikipedia are not. Please please read WP:RS and let's talk about sources that comply. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue, again, is not connection to industry, but claims of independence vs. the actual reality, implying lying on the part of EFSA staff.

Regarding Gnostic media - the reason for linking to that is because that is where a person who publicizes the fact I highlighted made an interview with the owner of the site, and it is where some of the relevant information in the attached video - "The Great Pension Fund Hoax". The original video the proponent made was "The Corporation nation": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkfMuvVuETQ - all the information in it is independently verifiable, though saying that it is the main source is a strawman, since the main source comes from here: http://www.cafr1.com/ - I was not advocating its use in the encyclopedia, I was merely highlighting it as an introduction to the broader implications of all of this.

There is however no reason why the argument that EFSA protocol supports Seralini, and thus, by implication, the EFSA is being selectively biased, that appears on Seralini's site, could not be used. A blog post of PZ Myers is liberally used in an attempt to undermine Luc Montagnier on montagnier's page. Surely, given that precedent, the originally cited link on Seralini's site could be used.71.202.210.61 (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

mention of our article in NY Times

here... Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That's quite nice (even though he implies incorrectly that the page only came into existence after the retraction)! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for the link. BlackHades (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Retraction

Word on the streets is that one way or another, the paper is about to be retracted. See "Retraction Watch" http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/ --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Accoding to the news article here that has already happened: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/krebskranke-ratten-fachzeitschrift-zieht-genmais-studie-zurueck-a-936217.html

--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered mentioning that the retraction is singular in the sense that the reasons for retraction don't fit with Elseviers own guidelines on article retraction? From the Elsiver site the mention retraction for: "Infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like. Occasionally a retraction will be used to correct errors in submission or publication." (http://www.elsevier.com/editors/policies/article-withdrawal). Nik 128.250.54.241 (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not - what you wrote above is what we call "original research" which is not allowed in Wikipedia - please see WP:ORJytdog (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

New content objecting to retraction

Today the following was added by User:Vindheim in this dif with no edit note :

"There has, however, also been a strong reaction from within the scientific community claiming the reasons cited by Elsevier are not sufficient to warrant a retraction, and could equally well apply to large number of other studies, including ones the GM-industry relies upon(ref)http://www.enveurope.com/content/25/1/33(/ref). Several prominent genetic scientists have signed a statement demanding that the study be reinstated. (ref)http://endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/Statement(/ref)" (ref markup changed so we can see sources)

I reverted in steps and added new content as follows:

In this dif I removed the bloggy site http://endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/Statement as a source, and the content that it was used to support, with edit note "remove another popup claire robinson website as source - not reliable"

In this dif (which includes fixing a typo). I first removed the other source provided and the content based on it, and provided new content with new sources, with edit note "cited source for reaction was submitted and accepted before retraction and doesn't mention the retraction. not a source for reaction. revised with source about reaction" (the cited source was submitted in August and accepted for publication in mid-November before the retraction, and as noted, doesn't mention the retraction. Using it as part of reaction is WP:OR

The text as it stood now read:

"Seralini and his supporters strongly objected to the retraction.(ref name=Casassus)Barbara Casassus for Nature News. November 28, 2013 Study linking GM maize to rat tumours is retracted: Publisher withdraws paper over authors' objections, citing weak evidence(/ref)(ref)Michael Hiltzik for the Los Angeles Times. November 29, 2013 Notorious anti-GMO study is retracted -- creating more controversy(/ref)" (ref markup changed so we can see sources)

User:Vindheim then reverted my changes in this dif, with edit note "undid weaselling", not dealing with the objections to the sources raised.

I then re-reverted in this dif, with edit note "as per WP:BRD please do not edit war. If you are Bold and add content, and are Reverted, Discuss! Thanks, I have opened a thread" and opened this thread.

So User:Vindheim please stop edit warring and talk! thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not discussing. I thought this was a simple update, presenting two valid sources.

1) The peer-reviewed article stating that the arguments used to defend the retraction, if universally applied, would necessitate retraction of numerous other articles. Jytdog removes this and inserts an opposing source, thereby removing an important and relevant argument.

2) A number of scientists, including several geneticists, have signed a statement demanding the retraction of Seralinis article to be undone. Jytdog removes this, claiming the website is not serious. Whatever the website, the signatures include genetic scientists such as Terje Traavik and Thomas Bøhn. Removing this information from the the article reduces the objectivity and relevance of this article and of Wikipedia.--Vindheim (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. As noted above, your source 1) does not mention the retraction; it was submitted for publication in August and accepted in mid-November and the retraction happened a week later -- your use of it here violates WP:OR. Please slow down and actually engage with what I am saying. The second source is not reliable - Claire Robinson is an anti-GMO activist and has many "popup" websites reacting to various controversies along the way. This is WP:SPS. I did not insert "an opposing source" and I don't even know what that means -- I used two very reliable sources: Nature News (this is a re-use as it was already cited) and the LA Times - both explicitly discuss the reaction. What is your problem with those two sources? Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, so source 1) does not mention the retraction; it does however mention the objections to Seralinis article. and even if the website in 2) is administrated by someone you distrust, the statement it contains is signed by accredited scientists. I do not object to your sources, I do object to your removal of mine. --Vindheim (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping your objections to the sources I used, and thanks for continuing to talk! However, you are still not dealing with the policy issues here. You cannot use 1) for the content you propose in this section, as this use violates WP:OR (specifically, WP:SYN) and 2) is not reliable as it is a WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a hard time following your logic here, Jytdog . Are you really claiming that referring to a peer-reviewed article equals Original Research ? If it were my own article, I would agree with you, but surely Wikipedia can refer to new scientific findings. And the claim that a statement signed by prominent scientists within the given field (genetic manipulation) is invalid, because it sits on a webpage administered by someone you distrust, is absurd. Surely the claims in the statement rest on the authority of the signees, not on that of the web-administrator.--Vindheim (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's slow down even more and do one at a time. I don't mean to be insulting, but have you read WP:SYN? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I have; and the way you use this guideline, it would be inappropriate to quote the IPCC reports, since they synthesize published work in the field of climate change. This is obvously not the intention of the guideline. --Vindheim (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for patience. I am sorry, but you are misunderstanding me. We don't synthesize ourselves - we do rely on authoritative publications, like those by IPCC, to synthesize and present the consensus. In the text you proposed for this section, you synthesized the argument that a) here is a peer reviewed paper that shows that the Seralini conclusions were solid, and b) therefore the publication should not have been retracted. If the peer reviewed paper said "the seralini publication should not have been retracted" you could cite it in this section, about reaction to the retraction. But it doesn't say that, so you cannot use it here. It could perhaps be used elsewhere in the article, about reactions to the Seralini publication itself and the validity of its conclusions, but not here, in the section about reactions to the retraction. Do you see what I mean now? Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. I get your point, and I shall consider it. --Vindheim (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

So, how about this version: There has also been support for Seralini within the scientific community. One study claims the objections presented against the Seralini paper could equally well apply to large number of other studies, including ones the GM-industry relies upon. In january 2014 several prominent genetic scientists signed a statement demanding that the Seralini study be reinstated. --Vindheim (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The article belongs in the Responses section, not here - putting it here is still WP:SYN. I went ahead and added content on that, and on the online petition. I removed "prominent" as is that your judgement - and many many more prominent scientists did not sign it than signed it, right? I contextualized both bits of new content so everything is knit together. Hopefully you will find the new content acceptable.Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your help; this has been most instructive. --Vindheim (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:CIVIL conversation! So, so important that we be able to discuss things and compromise. I really appreciate your patience.Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)