Talk:Genetically modified crops

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Genetically modified crops. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120724222425/http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/web/News/FestivalNews/Growingagrassthatlovesbombs.htm to http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/web/News/FestivalNews/Growingagrassthatlovesbombs.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Scientific "consensus"

With this edit I changed the "scientific consensus" language to what was agreed on in Genetically Modified Food in this section, where there was an extensive RfC about it and negotiation that followed the RfC to the language that is there now, which was changed with this edit and has been stable since then (despite editors who have insisted the language is still too strong). That RfC was noticed in this article talk page here. When the RfC closed I noticed the subsequent discussion Genetically Modified Food here specifically suggesting the discussion take place at Genetically Modified Food, and no one objected. I am shocked to see Aircorn has reverted my edit here and says, "This will probably need a rfc at some point". Seriously? You are you claiming that despite the notice of the RfC and subsequent notice about post-RfC discussion of that language were insufficient to justify using the result of those discussions for the language here? And that, therefore, a separate RfC must be held for each and every article that has this language? I am in disbelief. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You made no mention of a RFC or any consensus in your edit summary Controversy: changed from scientific consensus to scientific agreement per language in GMO foods.. The last RFC I can find on the subject is here and it closed as no consensus. If a RFC closes as no consensus then the status quo stays and unless a strong consensus can be reached on the talk page it usually takes another RFC to change it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the latest discussion on consensus. AIRcorn (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the edits, and Aircorn did not revert the entire edit, so all we seem to be arguing about here is whether the wording should be "scientific agreement" or "scientific consensus". I think that the language changes that Aircorn left intact are an improvement. As for getting into high dudgeon over agreement/consensus, I agree with Aircorn. There is a more precise meaning to the phrase "scientific consensus", so let's leave it that way, and find something more useful to discuss. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus per the cited sources, and the divide (i.e. ban of GMO crops worldwide) certainly underlines that. See also WP:OR and WP:SYN. prokaryotes (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So are you claiming that there is an agreement but not a consensus? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I can settle with an agreement, but it would be more precise to state that on a case per case basis, as the WHO states in their official announcement on GMO safety. prokaryotes (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why "scientific agreement" would be acceptable, but "scientific consensus" would not be. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Because a consensus is a clear majority opinion, visible in the mainstream scientific literature, and through official announcements - which clearly refers to a consensus. There are probalby GMOs which can be considered relatively safe, and there might even exists such a consensus, but not general speaking - including every single GMO.prokaryotes (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to qualifying it to indicate the case-by-case aspect. To my knowledge, however, there has yet to be a "case" where a GM food in the food chain has been found to be unsafe, so it is "general" with respect to existing crops. And you seem to be agreeing that there is a consensus with respect to that. I don't think that anyone here is claiming that there is a scientific consensus that it would be impossible to create some GM plant that would be unsafe. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a RS that makes the claim for agreement or consensus. AlbinoFerret 03:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see the numerous earlier discussions, and please do not wiki-lawyer that it's SYNTH unless a meta source uses the word "consensus". In any case, the solution is not changing "consensus" to "agreement", because the latter is just a WP:WEASEL-word. But perhaps more importantly, please see what I'm about to say below. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The "just look for it" idea is just problematic. I have looked in the past, I was involved in the RFC. To date none of the reliable sources I have looked at make the claim and the claim appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS. The closest is the AAAS source, but it misstates the WHO and that is a red flag for reliability. AlbinoFerret 21:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I really should have done that to begin with, sorry. It's just that it gets tiring to feel like one is having to say the same thing over and over again. And I do emphasize that changing the word to "agreement" should not be a solution to satisfy anyone. For me, my previous statement about it, [1], covers the situation as I see it. And if you consider the AAAS to be an unreliable source, then we are in a situation where it will be very difficult to get to consensus. The American Association for the Advancement of Science is about as close as I can imagine to being what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish: You say, " The American Association for the Advancement of Science is about as close as I can imagine to being what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source." I thought for health concerns, we are supposed to rely on secondary sources, such as review articles per WP:MEDRS, right? Why are we not using these two sources for statements about health and GMOs?

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I know that I've discussed Krimsky with you at another page, and he is a reliable source as a critic of mainstream science, but not a reliable source as a spokesperson for mainstream science. I remember seeing prior discussion of Domingo, but I don't remember the details. I'm wondering, just off the top of my head now, whether there might be an approach in which we say something like (very approximately), "according to such major scientific organizations as AAAS and... there is a scientific consensus that...", followed by "some scientists, such as Domingo and... have however questioned whether there is such a consensus". --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Domingo doesn't really question the consensus, most of what I read he just asks for more testing. Anyway this approach runs into major WP:weight issues. If we want to present different opinions we will really need a Scientific opinions on the safety of genetically modified food article. BTW the AAAS source is a secondary source. AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

I've been thinking hard about ways we can perhaps get to consensus. I see that editors have added the language "but should be tested on a case-by-case basis." I fully support that additional language, because after all, that is indeed what the sources tell us.

I have another thought, and this is what I want to suggest. The scientific consensus in the sources isn't really that it is impossible that any GM food crop will ever pose a greater health risk than conventional crops. Editors objecting to the page language are making a good point, insofar as that goes. But that does not mean that the preponderance of sources are saying that there is a meaningful risk in the food supply as a result of GM. It's important to grasp that distinction. And that in turn leads to my suggestion.

The language now on the page is that "food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but...". The verb there is "poses", in the present tense. That is accurate, per the sources, but it also implies that the situation will remain true, going forward into the future. And that is not supported by the sources. Therefore, I suggest changing: poses to "has posed". Thus:

There is general scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops has posed no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.

I could support that. Do other editors feel comfortable with it? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

That addition says there is consensus, and then there isnt. Its conflicting and does not deal with the synthesis problem. If the consensus claim stays it has to be shown where it is located. AlbinoFerret 21:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I find it worrying that editor Tryptofish continues to ignore current concerns. He still fails to provide reliable sources for his consensus claim. prokaryotes (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR which includes WP:SYNTHESIS is a core policy. It cant be overcome by local consensus of editors or RFC. A reliable source needs to be supplied. All the rest is just hand waving and distraction. AlbinoFerret 22:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I find it worrying, myself, that when I say that I support the language about case-by-case, and I then offer an additional change in the direction of accommodating the editors who have disagreed with me, some of those editors brush off my comments and accuse me of ignoring them. It sounds like "we have to get rid of the word "consensus", because these are Frankenfoods, and no compromise less than that will be acceptable". As for that core policy, I'm all in favor of complying with policies, and I hope that editors will now look at what I said at the NOR noticeboard, about two theories of what SYNTH really is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we get in a little trouble with WP:SYNTH going this route because there are two slightly different ideas that go hand in hand here that the literature talks about. That's also why I've moved (but not removed) the case-by-case language. The issue is that there are two main parts to the consensus statements out there.

1. GM crops don't pose (present tense) an inherently greater health risk than their conventional counterparts. Full stop. This doesn't say there isn't any risk, but just that the risk doesn't inherently increase due to being a GMO. Risk analysis is a projection based science, so it uses current or future tense. This is basically just saying it's the traits within a variety that matter for safety assessment, not how the trait got there. GM and non-GM crops can have safety issues, which leads into . . .

2. Currently marketed GM crops haven't posed a greater risk to human health than conventional food and are assessed for safety on a case-by-case basis. Since the lack of risk due to being a GMO is established, any safety assessments are just done on a per variety or transgenic event basis.

Basically there's the question of whether GM inherently does something that could be a significant risk followed by whether the specific crop, regardless of where it's traits came from, can be considered safe while looking at some specific traits. That's with the understanding that conventional crops can also go through a safety screening and found to be unsafe. The two ideas are complimentary, not antagonistic to each other as long as someone is catching the nuance. We do need to be careful we don't intermingle them too much and lose the meaning of both though.

That's why I moved the case-by-case language out as a separate clause. The mounds of literature out there often may focus on one of the two ideas a bit more or expect the reader to have some of this background already (which is why science editors at Wikipedia are expected to have a certain amount of competency in the given topic). I haven't quite thought of a good way to improve the remaining "currently marketed" text to also include the nuance on methodology risk, but I don't think now is the time to try dealing with all that nuance a stick to the language that had already been agreed upon before this talk section opened up with respect to using general scientific consensus. The current language hits the meat of that enough for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You should check reference before removing sourced content. Though, i did not checked the other two edits you just edited.prokaryotes (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a WP:LEDE. A source isn't always needed for those, especially when we just introduced all the sources in the prior sentence, and it's been that way for quite awhile now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'am puzzled by your response, the part you removed is sourced and discussed above, and are you suggesting to remove the references for the claim that there is a consensus? prokaryotes (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I only moved the case-by-case language. It was not deleted. It's a relatively minor detail, and it's already sourced in the previous sentence. So no, I never said absolutely all references should be removed from the lede, especially for something like the scientific consensus statement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly not a minor detail, and there is no consensus for removing it, even Tryptofish suggest this addition above. prokaryotes (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed this is not a minor detail, it is based on core policies, and if it violates it no local consensus of editors or RFC can stand compared to wide community consensus of core policies. that are the foundation of WP. AlbinoFerret 03:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's not go on a tangent here. The whole bit about being a minor detail in the relative sense is that it isn't something requiring a source under WP:LEDE. That's especially when the previous sentence is sourcing all those ideas already for something that should have lede references such as scientific consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The tangent is WP:LEDE which is a guideline, which cant be used to overcome WP:VER and WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR which are core policies. Please provide the source. AlbinoFerret 04:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE, the sources are provided in the body, and the lede merely summarizes the body. There is not policy violation, so please stop flashing them about as if there is something wrong with following the lede guideline.Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Then it will be no problem to point out the specific source, page location, and wording for the scientific consensus claim. Please provide it. AlbinoFerret 16:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What I think I am seeing here is that Kingofaces does not want the change in verb tense and wants the case-by-case lower in the paragraph; other editors want nothing less than the removal of the phrase "scientific consensus". I tried to offer a compromise, in between those two positions. I still hope that editors on each "side" will find it in their hearts to "give" a little. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be sure it's clear, I was wanting the case-by-case language immediately after the consensus statement (as opposed to lower in the paragraph). There was a lot of mischaracterization above that I deleted the phrase entirely, moved it below a bunch of text, etc. Nothing as egregious as it would seem by reading the comments above. For tense, it just gets tricky here because there are both forward thinking and current evaluation statements out there as explained above. Both tenses are correct, but we need to be careful not to exclude one. Even at the potential of having a compromise, I would have to say the current wording does things marginally better. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me about that; the wiki-markup made it look in the diff like there was a lot of stuff in between. I really do want to find a compromise, though. I actually am pretty satisfied with the version at the page a moment ago: [2]. But I wonder whether you could be persuaded to be flexible about the verb tense issue? Perhaps it won't be enough for the editors on the other "side", but any movement towards peace would be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Separating out the case-by-case language as a separate clause is more important in my mind. Tense isn't as big of a deal for me as you presented at least, but my main mention of it is to be sure we have understanding on talk at least of the different ideas at play here where different tenses can apply. I'm not going to nitpick about tense at this time beyond talk page discussion though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I do agree with both of you that the addition of the language "case-by-case" is an improvement of the representation of what is actually in the sources and I think Prokaryotes agrees too. That improvement is why I am not as aggressive as the others in challenging the change of "scientific agreement" to "scientific consensus", as I did when the change was first made and I wrote about it on this talk page here. (Yet, I do agree with the others that "scientific consensus" is OR and SYN. As is "scientific agreement".) Even though I have kept some distance from the emerging walls-of-text from this discussion of the "scientific consensus", because of the favorable addition, I want to remind you both and Aircorn of this: As I said above, I was quite troubled that what had previously seemed to be a Gentleman's agreement of the post-RfC discussion here to change "scientific consensus" to "scientific agreement" (in all the GMO articles that had it, not just GMO food), was completely undermined by bringing back the word "consensus". That is why we now have an explosion of posts objecting to the change. That compromise proposed and executed by Jytdog and even agreed to by Prokaryotes reduced the conflict over the sentence. Now that you three are trying to force the word "consensus" back in, opposition has predictably resurfaced. So I really don't understand what the purpose of trying to bring back the word "consensus" is and suggesting for yet another RfC, when that sentence had been fairly stable since the "consensus" was changed to "agreement". It seems like an invitation for drama. The two words are definitely not the same or there would not be so much opposition (or push) for the change. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

David, I appreciate your collegial approach here. I didn't take part in or follow that "gentleman's agreement", and looking back at it now to see what it says, it does not really seem that much like a clear consensus. I did not really follow this page closely until I saw Aircorn's edit that put "consensus" back, and the subsequent drama. Lately, I've been trying to stay away from GMO pages until such time as I see drama erupting, at which point I've been stepping back in. I agree with you that the words are not interchangeable, but it seems to me that "agreement" is a WP:WEASEL-word, whereas "consensus" is both precise and fully supported by the source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There also wasn't ever any gentleman's agreement to use the term agreement, so there wasn't really anything to take part in there. We had settled on the phrase general scientific consensus, but that's as far as we've ever got on agreed upon language as of late. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Source Request "scientific consensus"

To avoid any WP:SYNTHESIS which is on the core policy page WP:OR I request the source of the "scientific consensus" claim. This section need have nothing but a link to the source and a page number and a copy of the wording that supports the claim from a WP:RS. Those that the support the claim are asked to provide it. Arguing that its there and not providing the exact source and wording will not solve this issue. Please provide the required source per WP:VER. AlbinoFerret 02:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I brought up the AAAS statement at the OR noticeboard as that is the strongest source currently in the article. BTW If this is synth (which I don't think it is) is not saying "scientific agreement" as problematic synth wise as saying "scientific consensus"? AIRcorn (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Just agreement maybe, considering that most GMOs are up for sale, we should reflect that. Just not the word consensus. prokaryotes (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't address the synth question. AIRcorn (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Or use the per source quotation. prokaryotes (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The only problem is that the AAAS source only lists 4 groups, not even mentioning scientific agreement or consensus, even worse it misstates the WHO that GMO's have to be guaged on a case by case basis, a red flag for reliability. It also does not list any other sources it relies on, second flag. Third it is a statement of the Board of directors of the AAAS, not the orginazation, third flag. Try again. If the statement said " The AAAS board of directors said four organizations ..............." even listing the WHO ect out, it would be one thing, but the problems with the source, and using it to back a "scientific consensus" statement is problematic. Its still OR/synthesis. AlbinoFerret 21:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No point arguing this at two places. Better off at the No Original Noticeboard where there is a slight chance uninvolved editors might comment. AIRcorn (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#OR on GMO articles AIRcorn (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sentence regarding case-by-case testing in different countries

These two edits replaced sourced material:

Yet, some countries such as United States, Canada, Lebanon and Egypt do not have any special regulations for testing GM food on a case-by-case basis.

with this unsourced statement:

The safety of individual crops is assessed on a case-by-case basis...

This later statement is contradicted by RS about GMO regulations. In the edit which removed the original source statement, Kingofaces43 wrote "Not in source." Apparently, the editor did not read the source, it is indeed in the source and is brought up repeatedly in RS, especially RS that distinguishes US from EU regulations Numerous other law review articles say the same thing about the U.S., that there is no special testing for GM food, because of the substantial equivalence and Generally recognized as safe doctrines. . There was no justification for deleting the well sourced material and replacing it with unsourced material that is contradicted by the RS; therefore, I have restored the sourced material.

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

These tendentious tactics, especially the edit warring, needs to stop. Other editors mistaking a moved expanded sentence as deleted hasn't helped this discussion either. The source on the "special regulation" language says nothing of the sort. It says there isn't specialized legislation that mentions GMOs by name, but that's a non-issue because regulatory agencies deal with those nuances of developing new regulation. It goes quite in depth into the different ways GMOs are regulated in the US such as APHIS, FDA, etc. showing the language you are trying to revert back in is purely OR. You're basically trying to claim that because substantial equivalence is practiced, crops aren't evaluated on a case-by-case. That's a personal interpretation and an extremely incorrect one at that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I did nothing tendentious. I simply wrote what is in the RS. APHIS is not part of the FDA. The FDA regulates American food for safety, not APHIS. All of the resources say the same thing: that GMO's are Generally recognized as safe by the FDA, and if a GMO product can be shown to "substantially equivalent" to the conventional crop, no special toxicity and animal feeding studies are required, unlike for food additives (and "novel" food), where those studies are required (explained on page 746 of Marden). The RS also say that part of the process of approval in the U.S. is voluntary despite requests from the AMA that it be made mandatory (verifying this is as simple as looking at the FDA website under the section titled "Consultation" here). To suggest that GMO products are tested on case-by-case basis with toxicity and animal feeding studies as is required in Europe is misleading. If any edit is tendentious, it is putting such a misleading statement in the article. If you want to take this to a notice board, please do. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That's actually the part that demonstrates your novel synthesis, so I highly suggest self-reverting as you edit warred the content back in. To be considered substantially equivalent, testing is still needed to establish that (e.g., biochemical composition, etc.) on a case-by-case basis. The source also demonstrates that there are multiple regulatory agencies involved in the process. The source does say there isn't legislation specific to GMOs, but that's the case for many topics out there. Regulatory agencies are given some autonomy to decide what needs to be dealt with in their domain, so even mentioning specialized legislation in the article is a misnomer. As of right now, the source directly contradicts the statement you tried to make it say. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the RS I provided? You claim the source contradicts the language in the article. Please provide a sentence or page and the language you claim contradicts the sentence. So far Aircorn, Tryptofish have seen the language, and I assume other editors who monitor the articles. Tryptofish even slightly revised it in one of the articles. The language is a summary of material in the article referenced--we could expand it to summarize what goes on in other countries too and how it varies from country to country. So far, you are the only editor who objects to it. I do agree that to prove substantial equivalence one must do what is required for ALL food, which is what the FDA says here, not just GMO, so it is not specialized for GMO, which is consistent with what is said in the various RS. And again case-by-case is referring to the toxicology and animal feeding studies required by the EU (not test required of ALL food to prove substantial equivalence)--we could add the lack of "toxicological and animal feeding studies" to the sentence if that makes it clearer and satisfies your objection. And again the EPA and USDA do not regulate food safety; the FDA does. The language in the sentence specifically says "food" not crops and is directly relevant to the preceding sentence about FOOD safety, not the topics that are covered by the other agencies. So I do not see evidence of a problem with the sentence, or any suggestions to improve it if you really feel it has a problem. Can you please propose a better sentence that reflects what is in the RS I provided if you think there is a problem? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry David, but the WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate the source says this, not me.

Unless it's untrue that the United States, Canada, Lebanon, and Egypt do not require it (that's a double negative, so in other words, unless it's true that they do require it), I'm OK with that sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It is explicitly untrue:

"In the United States, in fact, each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and testing in order to receive regulatory approval, AAAS noted. It must be shown to be the same as the parent crop from which it was derived and if a new protein trait has been added, the protein must be shown to be neither toxic nor allergenic. "As a result and contrary to popular misconceptions," AAAS reported, "GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever.”[3]

and

"Whereas each new genetically engineered crop variety is assessed on a case-by-case basis by three governmental agencies, conventional crops are not regulated by these agencies. Still, to date, compounds with harmful effects on humans or animals have been documented only in foods developed through conventional breeding approaches."[4] (my bolding)

We're dealing with language that is not in the cited source as far as I can find as it appears to be an original synthesis of what the reader thinks it means barring some further clarification that the source does say this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking to the subject, there is no mandatory GM food testing in the US, in fact, there is no specific GMO regulation in the US. This is amply documented. For example (my emphasis in both):

The FDA regulates GM foods as part of the “coordinated framework” of federal agencies that also includes the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”).16 This framework, which has been the subject of critical analysis and calls for redesign,17 is available online18 and contains a searchable database that covers “genetically engineered crop plants intended for food or feed that have completed all recommended or required reviews.”19 The FDA policy (unchanged since 1992)20 places responsibility on the producer or manufacturer to assure the safety of the food, explicitly relying on the producer/manufacturer to do so: “Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met.”21 So it is the company, not any independent scientific review, providing the research that is relied on to assert safety. FDA guidance to industry issued in 1997 covered voluntary “consultation procedures,” but still relied on the developer of the product to provide safety data.22 There is currently no regulatory scheme requiring GM food to be tested to see whether it is safe for humans to eat.23 American Bar Association health law article (2013)

...and...

The United States does not have any federal legislation that is specific to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Rather, GMOs are regulated pursuant to health, safety, and environmental legislation governing conventional products.

Under the FFDCA, substances added to food can be classified either as “food additives,” which require approval from the FDA that they are safe before they can be marketed,[45] and substances added to food classified as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS), as to which preapproval is not needed.[46] In a 1992 policy statement, the FDA reaffirmed that in most cases it would treat foods derived from GMOs like those derived from conventionally bred plants, and that most foods derived from GM plants would be presumptively GRAS. Library of Congress report on GMO restriction in the US (2014)

Our GM food/crop articles should make clear the rather unique US regulatory situation: Compared to other countries, regulation of GMOs in the US is relatively favorable to their development.Library of Congress report --Tsavage (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

General agreement

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

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

Especially since we have sources using language like "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat."[5] and "Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). . ."[6]. The best thing to do at this point is stick with the scientific consensus language as the sources describe and cite the supporting sources that don't inherently say consensus, but reach the same conclusion for further explanation on the background. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point is moot now, but the whole reason I opened this section was because the article read "There is general agreement that food on the market..."[7] instead of saying general scientific agreement. The addition of scientific changes the meaning quite a bit. I can't have explained it well enough since the thread has gone on a tangent. Anyway, my comment was me giving up on changing the wording and accepting that we have general agreement (as in the words "general agreement") in the article and then giving into the new direction the thread is going, by responding to Prokaryotes (and generally agreeing with them). AIRcorn (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thanks, David, for drawing my attention to the Krimsky paper, because it cites another paper that I just posted about at NORN. It is: [8]. And as I said at the noticeboard, it talks directly about "scientific consensus". As for "general agreement" it's WP:WEASEL words. It actually falsely implies that politicians, advocates, etc. agree, which they don't, as other editors just pointed out. "Scientific consensus" is actually a narrower way of saying it. And as for any previous "gentleman's agreement", such as it may have been, consensus can change. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

On a quick look, I think that you may have gotten the quotation in the cite for [9] wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another suggestion

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

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

I suggest that we change it to:

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

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

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

Here again [10] is the source about consensus. The relevant language is right there in the abstract (KingofAces also please note), so you don't need to pay for full text access. And the Wikipedia policy at WP:PAYWALL says that a source cannot be rejected for that reason. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

*Source. OK folks, I've done some searching and (thanks to a citation in the Krimsky critique) I have found a reliable source from 2014 that says there is a "scientific consensus", in those exact words. It's a review article, reviewing the literature about GM food crops, with a particular view to summarizing both support and scientific concerns about GMOs, thus, a secondary source. It is in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, thus, a reliable source. All of the authors hold academic appointments or government research appointments in Europe, and appear to be unaffiliated with biotech companies, so no apparent author "COI". Here is a link: [11]. And here is a verbatim quote from the abstract: "We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide. The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense. An improvement in the efficacy of scientific communication could have a significant impact on the future of agricultural GE." On the one hand, there is still a debate (no kidding!), at least partly attributable to communication problems, but nonetheless there is a matured scientific consensus that no significant hazards have been detected so far. No SYNTH, no matter how one defines SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

WHO GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. Individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A majority of the general public (57%) says that genetically modified (GM) foods are generally unsafe to eat, while 37% says such foods are safe[12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my shot:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus sources

1. Nicolia: "We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops."[13]
2. Ronald: "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010)."[14]
3. Bett: "Empirical evidence shows the high potential of the technology, and there is now a scientific consensus that the currently available transgenic crops and the derived foods are safe for consumption (FAO, 2004)."[15]
4. Paarlberg: "There is a scientific consensus, even in Europe, that the GMO foods and crops currently on the market have brought no documented new risks either to human health or to the environment."[16]
5. Amman: "The broad scientific consensus was clear and compelling: ‘no conceptual distinction exists between genetic modification of plants and microorganisms by classical methods or by molecular methods that modify DNA and transfer genes' . . ."[17]
   
   Implicit on consensus
6. AAAS:The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques. [18][19]
7. AMA: "Federal regulatory oversight of agricultural biotechnology should continue to be science-based and guided by the characteristics of the plant, its intended use, and the environment into which it is to be introduced, not by the method used to produce it, in order to facilitate comprehensive, efficient regulatory review of new genetically modified crops and foods."[20]
8. European Commission: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." [21]
   
   WHO/FAO on consensus and case-by-case
9. WHO: "Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. . .GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved."[22]
10. FAO: "Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU)."[23]

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

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

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

Citations

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

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

Missed this section as I was working my way down. Copying my reply[24] from above "Not a fan of long strings of citations. Apart from raising suggestions of synth (which we really want to avoid) they are also aesthetically unappealing to the reader. If they are all needed I would prefer them to be in a note." AIRcorn (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I feel rather strongly that, for the group of sources that have been in that longish string, we should go back to this page version: [25]. That's what we had just before KingofAces added new sources while making the edit that he self-reverted. And I'm ambivalent putting them instead into a combined note. With the revisions we are making, it matters for the sake of precision that the superscript citations be placed precisely, so that Nicholia is the cite for "consensus", a reasonable number of other sources cite "safety", and the WHO is the cite for "case-by-case". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

1. "Empirical evidence shows the high potential of the technology, and there is now a scientific consensus that the currently available transgenic crops and the derived foods are safe for consumption . . ."[26]
2. "There is a scientific consensus, even in Europe, that the GMO foods and crops currently on the market have brought no documented new risks either to human health or to the environment."[27]
3. "The broad scientific consensus was clear and compelling: ‘no conceptual distinction exists between genetic modification of plants and microorganisms by classical methods or by molecular methods that modify DNA and transfer genes' . . ."[28]
4. [29] is listed as a consensus statement by the society. It may be better for explaining the background as it doesn't use consensus language in the article itself, but it is in the title of it being a consensus statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scholarly Opinion: Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council,[12] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[13] and the American Medical Association.[14] [30]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientific opinion on GMOs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential RFC

So it seems like myself, Tryptofish, KingofAces and Lfstevens will come up with agreement on the wording for that sentence soon. It is also obvious that other editors will disagree with that wording. So I am thinking this will probably go back for another WP:RFC to get a wider community input. If we go that route can we please discuss the wording and scope before starting one. If we are going to put all this effort in again we may as well give it the best chance of reaching a consensus one way or the other. AIRcorn (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not how an article is written. We don't "come up with a statement". This 'statement' is what we usually refer to as a summary of content already agreed upon and included in the body of the article.

To say that some editors will disagree is to admit you've no grasp of the situation. The RfC failed because when reliable sources are reviewed, it is clear there is no support for the idea that the science is settled. The sources are the "side that will disagree".

We have all agreed that to claim, for instance, that the Pew poll of AAAS scientists found '80% think GMOs are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts' is fine. To claim in WPs voice instead, based on this source, that there is "general scientific agreement", without making clear that this is not in reference to all scientists, or most, but a very small subset, is not acceptable. There are no stronger sources supporting this specific claim (and we don't need to revisit the "no WP:OR conversation, I hope), so this doesn't have support either.

The RfC failed because when it comes down to it, much evidence exists for the fact that there is rigorous scientific debate, especially in non-US countries, and that there is no consensus or general agreement.

So the proper step is to bring sources that should be included in an encyclopedic article, and quote them properly. For instance, it should be mentioned that the WHO says there is no way in can be claimed that all GMO foods are safe. We need to add mention of the studies/reviews that have found harm, when they meet MEDRS, as well as make a note about the amount of support for GMO labeling that exists in the States, and other "public perception" details.

Then, we can summarize AS A GROUP the content that has been added. petrarchan47คุก 22:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please consider to use several direct quotes, and something along the lines of the WHO for the lede.prokaryotes (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much reason to discuss the possibility of an RfC yet. First, we have to have some clarity about draft sentences, with proposed sources, and then see where we stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed there is no reason to talk even of "draft sentences" until all of the content to be added and summarized has been discussed, individually. The RfC failed to reach consensus because when the 18 sources that were used to support the "statement" were reviewed, they were all found lacking. The closer noted that the RfC was poorly constructed, as the editors were asked to review sources that weren't included in the article, and that changed throughout the RfC. It isn't appropriate to ask editors to review multiple sources that haven't been through the discussion process already. I would suggest editors begin to add content suggestions, using direct quotes. I'll begin a section below. petrarchan47คุก 00:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"The closer found the RFC was poorly constructed". Bang - nail hit on the head. Just suggesting that we should make sure a new one (if we need one - maybe we will all agree on something for once) is not poorly constructed. Maybe I jumped the gun, but I have taken part in too many poorly thought out RFC's not to at least suggest this. AIRcorn (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Bingo. The closer said they couldn't give a heads or tails decision. It's a bit early to suggest an RfC, and we don't defacto need one for this either. We've got strong sources supporting the consensus statement and also qualifying that the WHO's comments are exactly in line with that instead of opposing it. If we do, it will be a matter of providing the draft text and quotes from the relevant sentences. I'm doing a few tweaks above, but I'll have something on the talk page here soon that should be close to a proposed version to springboard off to whatever the next step is. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for content addition

Pro and others have suggested, in line with PAGs, that the content being summarized in the hotly disputed "safety statement" should be spelled out with as much detail as possible, with attribution, before summarizing it in WP's voice for placement in the intro. WP:nPOV dictates that we also include any criticisms and that we don't exclude details regarding the controversial side of this issue. petrarchan47คุก 00:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• The WHO

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.

• Imo, it is necessary for a fair, balanced view to present sufficient context for a food safety summary. Important points include:

• The unique position of the US in GM as far as regulation and economic interest, and how regulation in the US works.
• The US's unique GRAS doctrine, and how it compares with the precautionary approach.
• The basic idea of substantial equivalence: how it works, and the views, scientific and otherwise, about its current reality.
• An explanation of GM methods as not inherently more risky than other breeding methods.
• What it means that no harm has been documented so far, how that is determined.

I'm not imagining a sprawling recap of these various issues, instead, a tightly written, integrated summary of the relevant factors that input into GMO safety considerations, tailored to crops and food. Right now, this is just about ABSENT as a clear, accessible narrative for the general reader. --Tsavage (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying, by putting "not likely" into bold font that is not in the original source, that the source is saying that there is a significant likelihood? What is the reason that you did not use bold font for "have passed safety assessments"? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That was posted by Petrarchan47. My common sense read is that the emphasis serves to highlight the particular language the WHO uses in its safety summary, simple as that. --Tsavage (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Trypto, WP and Jdog, along with anyone else who has (re)inserted the contested language into articles, has been misrepresenting the WHO. My bold makes clear how this is so, although this issue has been covered quite extensively already, in both the RfC (by Sarah SV, especially) and the ArbCom case. I noticed at the OR/N Corn was questioning Pro's echoing these claims. My bold was also a response to him. Misquoting is what started the RfC - as Jdog and King became overwhelmed with complaints by GF editors trying to protect WP's veracity. petrarchan47คุก 19:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You remind me - I meant to suggest that folks read the WHO page from which I quote above. In my view, it is an excellent example of how an encyclopedia should read. Very concise, clear and informative. petrarchan47คุก 01:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. There is a clear, logical lead-up to food safety, which is the eighth section in. The WHO outline:

• What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods?
• Why are GM foods produced?
• Is the safety of GM foods assessed differently from conventional foods?
• How is a safety assessment of GM food conducted?
• What are the main issues of concern for human health?
• How is a risk assessment for the environment performed?
• What are the issues of concern for the environment?
• Are GM foods safe?
• How are GM foods regulated nationally?
• What kind of GM foods are on the market internationally?
• What happens when GM foods are traded internationally?
• Have GM products on the international market passed a safety assessment?
• What is the state of public debate on GMOs?
• Are people’s reactions related to the different attitudes to food in various regions of the world?
• Why are certain groups concerned about the growing influence of the chemical industry on agriculture?
• What further developments can be expected in the area of GMOs?

And that, a FAQ, is 2700 words, GM crops is 6600 wds, GM food 4800 wds, and most of this is either not covered, or poorly covered, between them. We're not out to reinvent the wheel. We have one reliable source that can be expanded on, and logical articles broken out with much more detail. Why are we not doing that, and trying to do something else? Editors are actually combing through "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food" looking for definitive support for a scientific consensus wording - what is going on? --Tsavage (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel very favorably about covering the topics listed in Tsavage's first list of bullet points (ie, the first list, not the recap of the WHO source sections). I think it's especially important to have an international perspective. But there are some things I'm not clear about, because we seem to have gotten into this discussion section by way of discussion about a single sentence in the lead. You don't mean to cover all of this in a single sentence or so, right? I don't see how that could be done. And I hope that we won't attempt to cover all of this in the lead section, right? This material needs to be dealt with at sufficient length. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I am referring to ensuring that the articles, GM food/GM crops, cover the basics, I'm not suggesting that a single sentence cover those basics.

The lead for a developed article should summarize the article, and a summary sentence, wherever it appears, should be supported by sufficient in-article context to allow the reader to make sense of that summary. Any broad summary statement about GM food safety, using consensus language or otherwise, needs to at the same time be supported by the necessary context, to avoid being misleading or misrepresentative. An explanation of the US regulatory system, GRAS, substantial equivalence, etc (e.g. the content in either my list or, even better, the more extensive WHO list), is required to make minimally informed sense of a safety summary.

That the WHO has done that and much more in half the space of our entire GM food article, indicates that it can be done, and in fact gives use the reliable source necessary to do so without delay. --Tsavage (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand Trypto's question, though. We really should divide this discussion of sources/missing content into two parts for now, to keep things simple. The summary of views on GMO safety needs to be discussed separately, and immediately. Why don't we list sources that address this specific issue, that qualify as RS, add them to related articles, and update our summary statement accordingly? petrarchan47คุก 19:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment about the questions to be answered. I think I have expressed before that if one of the goals of the articles is to answer a set of questions, the selection of which questions will make a difference in what is covered. People who know little about GMO's may be asking the "wrong" questions--because they do not have a basic understanding of GMO's. So popular questions may be poorly phrased and difficult to answer simply. Some rumor about GMO's might be spread and there may be a lot of questions about the rumor. Consider for example rumors about Area 51, where I think I once saw a TV program or found a book where an individual claimed aliens had been captured and they had seen the aliens. I do not think it is the encyclopedia's job to address a question such as "Are there aliens in Area 51?" any more than "Is the moon made of green cheese?" but instead to objectively report on what is known about Area 51 (or the moon) without any needless focus on crazy rumors and questions about them, except perhaps reporting on the RS that says such a rumor is popular. Of course, your questions are not like that, but I use these extreme example to show how popular questions (and misconceptions) are often not the "best" questions.

As further examples of my concern, consider different list of questions from different sites. Questions from industry sites, consumer sites, anti-gmo sites or regulatory agencies will all be slightly different to address the goals of the organization posing and answering the questions. The FDA for example will want to reassure readers through their Q&A that they are doing a great job regulating them, while the others will have a different agenda.

Consider for example, these lists of questions from a Google search.

Q&A from GMO Answers (I believe this is an industry site) Questions & Answers:

1. If livestock eat genetically modified grain, will there be GMOs in my meat?
2. Are feeds made from GMOs safe for livestock?
3. Are GMOs contributing to the death of bees?
4. Are GMOs contributing to the death of butterflies?
5. Why are companies against labeling GMO foods?
6. Are GMOs causing an increased use of pesticides?
7. Why aren’t long-term health studies conducted on GMO plants?
8. Are GMOs contaminating organic food crops?
9. Are GMOs Increasing the Price of Food? ←
10. Are big companies forcing farmers to grow GMOs?
11. Are GMOs causing an increase in allergies?
12. Do GMOs Cause Cancer?

From grist.com (I think also pro-industry) Q&A:

1. I’ve heard that GMOs are totally unregulated, is that true?
2. Do the big seed companies prevent scientists from doing research on their patented plants?
3. Are there dangers for scientists working on genetically engineered plants?
4. Is genetic engineering more likely than other forms of plant breeding to create unforeseen changes?
5. Isn’t genetic engineering more likely to create allergens?
6. So, does the chance that novel allergens could emerge make genetic engineering dangerous?
7. But what about those studies suggesting that GMOs are harmful?
8. Isn’t it possible that some subtle, unintended shift in corn DNA is causing the obesity epidemic, the rise of autoimmune disorders, autism, and Morgellons disease?
9. Have genetically engineered crops reduced insecticide applications?
10. Haven’t the decreases in insecticides been dwarfed by increases in herbicides?
11. What about soil and carbon? Have GMOs led to carbon capture and soil preservation by facilitating an increase in no-till and low-till farming?
12. Who has profited from genetically engineered crops?
13. Aren’t there big problems caused by the fact that genetically engineered seeds are patented?
14. But that’s nothing, what about Monsanto forcing farmers to buy their seeds by spreading the terminator gene?
15. Is genetically engineered pollen spreading into regular old plants?
16. Do genetically engineered crops help or hurt poor farmers?
17. Do we absolutely need genetically engineered crops to feed the world?
18. So should we label GMOs?

From Monsanto Q&A

1. What are biotechnology, genetic engineering, genetic modification and GMOs? And, why does Monsanto use it?
2. Are foods and ingredients developed through biotechnology (or GMOs) safe to eat?
3. Who makes sure biotech crops are safe to eat and safe for the environment?
4. Can consumers avoid GM foods in the grocery store if desired?
5. Are foods and ingredients developed from genetically modified (GM) crops labeled?
6. Do GM crops provide any benefits?
7. Has anyone studied the long-term health effects of GM crops (GMOs)?
8. In addition to animal feeding studies, are human clinical trials used to test the safety of biotech (GM) crops?
9. Is food grown with or developed from biotech seeds contributing to allergies in America?
10. I’ve seen reports of studies showing GM crops are safe and others saying they aren’t. Who and what do I believe?

Council for Responsible Genetics (critical/skeptical of GMO's) Q&A?

1. How many genetically engineered foods are on the market?
2. Isn't genetic engineering merely a minor extension of traditional breeding practices?
3. Won’t genetically engineered foods cure world hunger?
4. Isn't genetic engineering a precise and predictable science?
5. Do genetically engineered foods pose risks to human health and safety?
6. Do genetically engineered foods pose risks to the environment?
7. Do genetically engineered foods raise other ethical considerations?
8. Doesn't the U.S. government test genetically engineered foods to ensure that they are safe for human consumption?
9. What is the U.S. government policy on labeling of genetically engineered food?
10. Do consumers have a right to know that their food has been genetically engineered?

An organic food site Q&A:

1. How can I determine if a product contains GMO ingredients?
2. Is there any way I, as a consumer, can get my food tested for GMOs?
3. What are the tests and how do they work?
4. How large a batch of material is needed for a statistically valid result?
5. Does batch size change with kind of material (e.g. seed versus ground meal), or type of source (e.g. corn vs. soy)?
6. How is the sample taken, and how it is treated before testing?
7. Once a product has been verified, what, if anything, might trigger retesting it later?
8. What are the costs involved for current PCR testing?
9. How long does it take from sampling the batch to determining the results?
10. Much of the current end use of GMO corn and soy is as animal feed. Can GMO feeding be detected in the final meat, milk, eggs, fiber, etc?
11. What innovations are happening in the science or engineering of GMO testing and what options might they open up?
12. What products does the Non-GMO Project verify?
13. What foods can I buy without worrying about GMO ingredients?
14. Is organic certification a guarantee against GMOs?
15. Where can I get products that don't contain GMOs?
16. How about feed for my pets or livestock?

As you can see from these lists there is a huge difference in what Questions are asked (and how they are answered) based on who is doing the asking. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The IMMEDIATE advantage of the WHO FAQ is that it is also entirely a reliable source, so it can be used to get the articles quickly to a minimum quality standard. My concern is that months and years seem to go by here with lots of talk and nothing much done. It would be nice to have a reasonable informative GM article sooner than later. The WHO FAQ makes that doable. --Tsavage (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. That is an advantage, I suppose. My main point still remains that every organization has an agenda as to what Questions they ask (and how they go about answering them). The industry sites want to ally fears, the FDA (and entities like the WHO) wants you to know that they are doing a great job regulating GMO's and GMO trade internationally, the organic site tells you how to avoid GMO's, and the other site challenges the industry claims about feeding the world, the idea that GMO is the same as breeding, etc., so who writes the questions indeed makes a big difference. I don't think the WHO list is a great list to be honest, not even close to comprehensive, but at least the WHO is RS, unlike probably all of the others that I provided. I don't have a problem with having these questions easily answered.

But I think the bigger problems with the articles is that they are poorly organized by title and internally, multiple articles have similar and complicated names and often have (or should have) more or less the same information and the information in different articles can actually seem to contradict each other because one article is incorrect, and basic information such as the major difference between European and the USA regulatory schemes is buried in the wrong sections making it hard to find the information that is there. This is why I have decided to not put as much effort into the debate about the sentence on the "scientific consensus" as I have in the past, because the other material about regulations is not adequately explained and even misrepresented. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(BTW, here's a shortlist of FAQs I assembled for my own crosschecking reference, a kinda nice mix: WHO, Non-GMO Project, Whole Foods Market, FDA, Monsanto, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and Kids' Guide to GE by Tiki the Penguin. :) --Tsavage (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Did you put those lists on Wikipedia somewhere? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: One extremely practical use for a selection of FAQs is to definitively show what subject areas are considered part of the mainstream topic, and do not belong separated in a Controversies article. And the 2700-word WHO FAQ, half the length of our current GM Foods article, demonstrates that a lot can be covered in a concise, summary style. This should put a well-sourced end to basic content inclusion debates. --Tsavage (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

True, but I think we want to have more information than a FAQ from the WHO and should have high quality RS to back up our material. The WHO speaks in broad generalizations, some of which I find not entirely helpful and provides no footnotes to explain exactly what they mean and why they came to their conclusion and what opinions they rejected and why they rejected them. More like "Trust us. We are the WHO. We have experts who write our material. You don't need to know where it came from." (Argument from authority.) The section "8. Are GM foods safe?" that has been dissected both for and against saying there is a "scientific consensus" on the safety of GMO food is a good example of the problem I descirbe. Having read the RS, I do not consider it a very accurate description of the literature (I have seen worse of course), although there is certainly RS available to support just about every sentence in that section, they don't refer us to any of it. (That probably can be found somewhere, and if you know, please share.) I guess I am not all that impressed with the WHO FAQ. I think we should do better, so it will take more language. Now as for the leads of our articles, they will need to be more concise like the WHO language, and then refer to the discussion in the body. My two cents. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)