Talk:Genetically modified organism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Safety Switch

Scientists Give Genetically Modified Organisms A Safety Switch. can this source be cited in the article? IjonTichy (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Interesting - this is basically new versions of, and a positive spin on, terminator technology which anti-GMO people were deeply suspicious of. With regard to this specific thing - in my view this is "news" about basic research published in a primary source - there are probably reviews that cover this and other approaches that we should cite. I will have a look and see what I find! Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

objection to a very categorical statement

"No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food"

Why all controversy then? Anyhow, such a categorical statement needs only 1 counter-example to disapprove it and soften it in the article:

[2], [3], section 3.7, [4]

In other words, please soften the statement with support from new references, or add a contradictory statement with new references, or remove the statement all-together. Thank you.

203.176.132.186 (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not one of those articles documents ill effects in an actual person from eating GM food. The last one, I note, has to do with organic farming and the application of Bt spray - GM crops containing Bt require no spraying of Bt. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog but he also raises an important distinction: "ill effects in an actual person from eating GM food". The article right now states something much more vague and encompassing: "No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food". That "from" is too broad and doesn't reflect the current issues with GM crops related pesticides. I'm changing the statement to to a more precise "No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from ingesting GM food". Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

sounds good thanks Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the original objections of user: 203.176.132.186 (talk). The statement in the article lacks NPOV. The change in the statement by Gaba ^(talk) does not correct the problem at all. David Tornheim (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Systemic Bias tag

Hello everyone, I added this tag to the article because I noticed the statement "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food" but this statement only reflects scientific consensus of some scientists in the United States, and not, for instance, the Russian scientific community. Should we rewrite this and related sentences to encompass more of a global perspective? Terms like "broad" are confusing at best and inaccurate at worst. LesVegas (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

At quick glance, we already have an EU source in the referenced content. I'm not aware of any legitimate regional dissention amongst the scientific community in this topic, so do you have reliable secondary sources from the scientific literature that states there are regional issues? WP:FRINGE definitely comes into play here, so we also need to be wary of that. One thing to remember is that we generally turn a blind eye to location when it comes to summarizing scientific consensus. We just summarize what the sources say regardless. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see the EU source. For now, I'll change the tag back to "Anglo-American" until we figure out what to do about those dern' Ruskies! Scientific consensus in Russia is that GMO's are problematic, and I don't see why fringe would apply to them. Again, I'm not arguing the position of possible fringe scientists in the US, but rather that, worldwide, there is no way we can say "broad scientific consensus". LesVegas (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

science does not vary around the world. That is a WP:FRINGE perspective. We don't tag WP articles based on FRINGE perspectives. Do not edit war over this. You need a valid basis for tagging an article. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC) per t:POV there needs to be a valid reason under NPOV, based on what the policy actually says, to tag an article. The idea that science varies around the world is a fringe perspective and per the WP:PSCI section of WP:NPOV we don't give weight to fringe perspectives (see the guideline that fleshes out PSCI, WP:FRINGE) Please establish a basis for problems with NPOV before tagging the article. Please do not edit war over this. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC) (reworded - doesn't change meaning Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC))

this source would seem to disagree that there is a lot of regional variation about the safety of GMO. Yobol (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

yes, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The Russian scientific community is a fringe view? I also said there are others. The Chinese scientific community has called GMO food safety into question and there is an active debate about it. On a worldwide scale, saying "other countries are fringe" is exactly the point of why this article demands a systemic bias tag. We cannot give preference to US scientists only. And we cannot say "broad consensus" when, globally, there is none. And, for the record, I'm not edit warring. I only reverted once when you were under the impression I wasn't intending to use the talk page. Anywho, perhaps we can go about this impasse by rewriting certain phrases instead of using a tag to pull in more editors. I strongly object to the wording "broad scientific consensus", so maybe that's a good starting point? LesVegas (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

did you look at the link provided by Yobol, and maybe notice the "chinese academy of sciences" there? (EU, several european countries including France, india, mexico, even the freaking pope. not to mention the WHO, the vatican of world health). so yes, global scientific consensus. and therefore, ... sources please for russia's and china's scientific consensus. thanks. plenty of folks before you have challenged the "broad scientific consensus" language and it even went through an RfC just about a year ago, where it was sustained. That discussion is here: Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies/Archive_6#Request_for_comment_on_.22broad_scientific_consensus.22 No new science has emerged since then that would change the scientific consensus. (that is what it would take to change it - some significant new scientific findings). Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Russia’s National Association for Genetic Safety isn't the "Russian Scientific Community" and as Jytdog has pointer out, this point has already been discussed at length over at genetically modified food controversies which is the article that is summarised here. There are clearly strong sources which say that there is a broad consensus, so if you disagree, please provide sources that demonstrate this is incorrect and not just one source where an activist says that they are unsafe. SmartSE (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the link, Smartse! yes there are fringe-y activist groups like that in the US too. consensus does not mean unanimity. not even broad consensus means unanimity. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with LesVegas (talk). There is no "scientific consensus" on the safety of GMO products. I provided WP:RS in a separate section of this talk page. David Tornheim (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You did not provide sources that can be used to support your claims. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we add some information about experiment on GMO food fed to rats?

Can someone with native English language edit this section to add information that is missing and crucial for a non/biased article? Here is the study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637 Here is a objective exlanation of why it has been retracted: http://www.corbettreport.com/genetic-fallacy-how-monsanto-silences-scientific-dissent/ I think this sentence "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.[117][118][119] No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from ingesting GM food." does not consider all the data available on the subject. Unmismoobjetivo (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. This article is focused on GMOs per se. It is not about all the controversies around them. Wikipedia has an article on each kind of GMO thing that actually explains what it is, how it is used, etc, which are linked at the top of the page. This is so people can actually understand the subject of the controversy (formerly, each article was smothered with the controversy itself and said nothing about the controverted thing itself) Each article, including this one, has a stub section on the controversies, with a link to the main controversies article. In the main controversies article there is a section on the Seralini series of studies, as well as others, here. Wikipedia also has an article on all the hoopla around that article and its retraction: Seralini affair. Content about that does not belong in this article, since that article is not about what a GMO is or how it is used. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with user Unmismoobjetivo (talk). The statements lack NPOV. There is no such "scientific consensus". Please see any of the below articles, which demonstrate both that there is no broad 'scientific consensus' on GMO safety -and- that GMO critics vigorously contest such a claim (neither of which is mentioned in the lede as it should for NPOV):

• ENSSR article: "Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety"
• Food & Water Watch Article: "The so-called scientific 'consensus': Why the debate on GMO safety is not over"
• GM Watch publishing excerpts from above above F&WW article immediately above.
• Beyond GMO article: "Who says GMOs are safe? (and who says they’re not)"
• This law review
• This published scientific Study, PubMed:18989835 "Health risks of genetically modified foods."

David Tornheim (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the statement about negative effects on humans is misleading as it stands, given the references just cited above. In addition, the controversy needs to be covered at least in fair measure in this article. How is the reader to know about the articles Jytdog is referring to? I came to this article to find out about GMOs and the issue of their alleged dangers after reading an interview with Jeffrey Smith. This article is insufficient for me without a clarification of the scientific viewpoints. 76.126.195.34 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see above. The various articles on GMOs are knit together using the concepts described in the guideline, WP:SUMMARY. Please read that. This article has a brief summary section on the controversies, with a link to the main article, as described in SUMMARY. You just follow the links. The statement of the scientific consensus is not misleading; it is accurate and has been supported by what we call in Wikipedia a "request for comment" (see WP:RFC) on whether the statement and its sources are OK under Wikipedia's polices and guidelines. You can read the RfC and its outcome here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The controversy article is mentioned in this article. One click and you're there. That handles it for me. More, shorter, more focused articles are better than fewer, battleship-sized monsters. This is a huge topic. Further, the critics are having trouble getting their claims accepted by other scientists, which I think accounts for the paucity of secondary scientific sources that support them. If you find some, please send them our way. The sources cited above are not that kind of article. Lfstevens (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No so-called "scientific consensus"

As I have mentioned in the Genetically modified food controversy talk page here (and at least 3 users have noted), there is no "scientific consensus" that GMO's are as safe as conventional food, and I listed articles there and also above on this talk page proving it. It is little more than rhetoric originating from GMO Proponents. This sentence:

"There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food."

is little more than WP:OR, which is why so many citations are provided. I propose that either:

• The sentence is stricken
• The sentence is changed for NPOV to include the challenges to the "scientific consensus" claim.

David Tornheim (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. Your perspective on this is different from that of the community to date, as upheld by an RfC, which is here. But we should keep the current discussion in one place, as you linked to above: here. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussions on scientific consensus on GMO safety elsewhere

FYI. The claim of "scientific consensus" on GMO safety is being discussed here and was briefly discussed here. David Tornheim (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In fiction

I don't know if this warrants a mention in the article, but GMO has been used incidentally and thematically in fiction, especially SF. One example is in James P. Hogan's novel Giant's Star, where the Ganymedes used it unsuccessfully. 76.126.195.34 (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate article would be best for that. SarrCat ∑;3 18:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be my first initial thought, but I'm not sure how we'd write a coherent article that's not simply a list of books or movies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Sentence on “broad scientific consensus” of GMO food safety fails to achieve consensus: It is time to improve it.

The Request for Comment (RfC) here created by Jytdog for the purpose of reaffirming the findings of this previous RfC on the language and sourcing of the sentence of a “broad scientific consensus” of the safety of GMO food (found in numerous articles) has closed here . There is no longer a consensus supporting the sentence. The closer stated:

Should the sentence be removed? Or maybe modified (and if so, to what)? There is no clear consensus on any particular action....Some of the opposes in this discussion appear to agree with the substance of this section but feel that the wording of the one sentence is overly broad; they might support more nuanced statements. I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording

I would also like to note that the closer of the earlier RfC made a similar recommendation:

... it may be helpful to refer to to some of the literature reviews to represent alternative views on the matter with respect to due weight.

With these recommendations in mind, I have provided a new sentence in the article and for discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food that I believe is more WP:NPOV than the original that failed to achieve consensus at the recent RfC. Because the sentence occurs at numerous articles:

• Genetically modified food controversies (Talk)
• Genetically modified food (Talk)
• Genetically modified crops(Talk)
• Genetically modified organism(Talk)
• Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (Talk)
• March Against Monsanto (Talk)
• The Non-GMO Project(Talk)

I suggest we continue to consolidate talk at Talk:Genetically modified food. David Tornheim (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Genetically modified organism. 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/20140705163616/http://r2m.nus.edu.sg/cos/o.x?c=/r2m/pagetree&func=view&rid=5858 to http://r2m.nus.edu.sg/cos/o.x?c=/r2m/pagetree&func=view&rid=5858

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} 06:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Scientific consensus edits

See no consensus per RFC discussion, and WP:OR violation per synthesis. (Ping, Jytdog,Kingofaces43 -- prokaryotes (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You'll need to get consensus for the specific replacement text. That's been ongoing at RfC,s etc., so please wait until that conversation has produced something. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Stating that there is a consensus is wrong per RFC, it was changed at the article of Genetically modified food (by Jytdog) - thus can be done here too, and is synthesis per references (OR violation). prokaryotes (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I said there was no consensus for a specific edit yet at that RfC that you linked to. If there was, all you would have needed to do was link to the specific diff or at least section. Looking at the article you just linked to this time, that section of the article is highly in flux. Give it a little time settle first. There is no WP:DEADLINE, and we usually don't dictate content from other articles unless we're talking about WP:SUMMARY. It's getting worked out over there though in this case, so let's wait until there's a stable consensus either through edit history or talk page consensus that can be specifically linked. Demonstrating either of those will cut down on unneeded edit warring in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree that we should update per the discussion over there. However, the revert by you discussed here is wrong, a revert back to a synthesis - to original research/not backed up by references. Thus, your actions are disruptive. prokaryotes (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

folks there is a tentative consensus on the "There is a general scientific agreement that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food." language. It is the first ballpark acceptable language offered by anybody who opposed at the last RfC and I implemented it at the GM food article Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Good to see that you finally begin to remove your copied synthesis statements. It just took over 2 years and several editors to correct it.prokaryotes (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned before, actual reference to this would have been nice as Jytdog did. In the future, please avoid prickly drama by using the talk page and directly addressing points rather than edit warring. This could have been addressed extremely simply. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Diamondback moth

Proposed article addition. Feedback encouraged:

In 2015 GM diamondback moths modified to produce nonviable female larvae were introduced to control populations that were able to quickly become resistant to insecticides. The modified insects were initially placed in cages for field trials. Earlier it was the first crop pest to evolve resistance to DDT and eventually became resistant to 45 other insecticides. Their caterpillars cost farmers an estimated $5 billion a year worldwide. In Malaysia, it became immune to all synthetic sprays. The gene is a combination of DNA from a virus and a bacterium. In an earlier study captive male moths carrying the gene wiped out communities of normal moths. Brood sizes were similar, but female offspring died before reproducing. The gene itself disappears after a few generations, requiring ongoing introductions of cultivated males. Modified moths can be identified by their red glow under ultraviolet light, caused by a coral transgene.

Opponents claim that the protein made by the synthetic gene could harm non-target organisms that eat the moths. The creators claim to have tested the gene's protein on mosquitoes, fish, beetles, spiders and parasitoids without problems. Farmers near the test site claim that moths could endanger nearby farms' organic certification. Legal experts say that national organic standards penalize only deliberate GMO use. The creators claim that the moth does not migrate if sufficient food is available, nor can it survive winter weather.

I object to including Their caterpillars cost farmers an estimated $5 billion a year worldwide,mthe rest looks fine to me. that sentence doesnt appear to be sourced and has problems re neutrality and notability, unlike the rest of your proposed addition. It could do woth hbetter linking and illustrating as additions too, though. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. the 5B# was in the NYT article. What links are missing? (Feel free to add them.) Lfstevens (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Tentatively it looks fine, though DDT may not be relevant here as we could pick out any major insecticide that's been used over time. I would look for more scientific reliable sources to back up the claims of safety testing or if claims of being a potential harzard aren't a WP:FRINGE view. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't see any other sources on testing. Lfstevens (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Added some sources, some links and details on resistance. Lfstevens (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for preparing this! This is a high level overview article on GMOs. In my view this level of detail on any one specific GMO is too much. This content as is, could well go in the Gene drive article or the Genetically modified insect article. There should be a mention of this, in this article, with a wikilink to whereever it ends up. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Anybody else? Lfstevens (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

We have articles on Genetically modified fish, Genetically modified bird and others. I suggest it is best uploaded to genetically modified insect and we can incorporate material from here to expand that.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Done! Lfstevens (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom, requests for cases

A request for an Arbcom [5] case and a AE request to apply pseudoscience discretionary sanctions [6] have been filed that may affect this article. All editors wishing to make a comment should visit the pages linked to. AlbinoFerret 16:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Role of academics

Then there's this: [7] Lfstevens (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

yep. on both sides. i knew about the Folta stuff but I didn't know that Benbrook had the same kinds of relationships. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure of the quality of the source, but independent science news details more of the contents of the emails and people involved, including Nina Fedoroff, 2011-2012 President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.Dialectric (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a website run by two prolific anti-GMO advocates, who post articles about all kinds of FRINGE stuff. Not the kind of source what we want to use. If you scroll to the bottom you will see it is a project of the bioscience resource which is their main project. All of it is all anti-GMO, all the time. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

I am a new user on wikipedia and this is my first post. I am trying to gain insight in the matter of GMOs and as I was researching the controversies section of this article and checked the references; I found them to be somewhat, lacking. I was going to post why I thought this but then read Jytdog's response that there is an entire page dedicated to the controversies surrounding GMOs. My thought now is, why even include the controversy section in this current article? This sentence, "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.[120][121][122] No reports of ill effects have been proven in the human population from ingesting GM food" seems to advocate for GM crops when this is supposed to be a neutral article. When looking at the references supporting this sentence, I found references directly linked to them stating the opposite. Although I found this part possibly misleading, this is just a suggestion, please do not take any offense. I fully appreciate everyone's hard work in giving us the background on GMOs. Thanks! OrphB (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi OrphB thanks coming and talking! Wikipedia stands very solidly with the scientific consensus on all things related to science. Please see the policy for editors, WP:NPOV, specifically this section WP:PSCI, and also the guideline that fleshes out that section, WP:FRINGE. There is a scientific consensus on these issues (although you wouldn't know that from websites you find out there). We need to include reference to the controversies, or this article would have a big whole in it. But we include this summary section, pointing folks to the main article, following the guideline called WP:SUMMARY. I know I just threw a lot of policy and guideline stuff at you, but if you think about it for a minute... this is "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and a real democracy, so over the years the editing community has build up a body of law as it were, to help us work together. Without that, this place would be a pretty ugly, wild west-like place. With it, things can be beautiful here. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The "GMO controversy" might be replaced with a "problems" section listing the problems with GMOs. But that would require having to go through the bought-and-paid-for and selectively-consensed-here "science". The GMO pushers want you to think that their products and practices are infallible and can do no harm — a fact that is glaringly omitted from the entire section.

Monsanto's board members have worked for the EPA, advised the USDA, and served on President Obama's Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations.

Monsanto and other Biotech has a significant research agreement with South Dakota University, Arizona State's Biodesign Institue, Washington University in St. Louis, University of California at Berkeley's Plant and Microbiology, and UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences.

"…GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.[115][116][117][118]" Adding more references was not what was needed there. This so-called "GMO controversy" section is obviously not neutral. Xkit (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the topic much less biotech companies in general. As explained above, the section GM Controversies section in this article is a WP:SUMMARY of the main article, Genetically modified food controversies. If you have concrete ideas about how to improve the article that comply with WP's policies and guidelines, it would be great to hear them.Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with user OrphB (talk) that the article lacks NPOV for the reasons stated. I additionally provided RS showing that there is no such "scientific consensus" in an earlier section of this talk page. David Tornheim (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources provided satisfy WP:RS in relation to the insanely broad scientific consensus that GM crops, et al, are not a health risk (i.e., ingesting randomly mutated dna happens everyday). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the Union of Concerned Scientists really a valid source for the claim that "traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down"? As far as I'm aware, they are vehemently against GMO crops (and nuclear power) regardless of the evidence, so they might be a tad biased there. CorruptUser (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's been called out as a WP:FRINGE group in climate change too, but I don't think it will gain traction as a source in these articles either. Hard to tell until we have specific content, so it's probably best to let this section be. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand that it is not necessary to provide diffs on Talk pages, but when such statements are made, these would be helpful to progress discussion. Who says they are FRINGE?DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Better than a diff, have a read of this. (@CorruptUser: did you mean to post in this section or the [[#Controversy:_GMOs_in_impoverished_countries|one at the bottom] where the content cited to them is being discussed?) SmartSE (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Controversy: GMOs in impoverished countries

Although some Nobel prize winners and other outstanding scientists are acknowledged in the article, only Gurian-Sherman of the UCS is identified as an “expert”. Presumably this was an attempt to confer extra weight to his analysis. That analysis, which found little or no crop yield benefit from GMOs, is invoked to counter concern about effects that might occur if GMO use were to be hampered in impoverished countries. However, the Gurian-Sherman data analysis, like the more scientifically persuasive analysis of Xu et al. (2013), does not apply to such countries. Both were confined to data relevant to the US. Some other analyses, which could bear on the matter, are not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. The meta-analysis of Finger et al. (2011) indicates yield benefits in countries with poor pest management practices, and the meta-analysis of Areal et al. (2013) indicates better performance of GM crops in developing compared with developed countries. A global meta-analysis of 147 studies (Klümper and Qaim 2014) found, on average, 22 percent higher crop yield with GM crops. Also the article’s sentence describing Gurian-Sherman’s findings is a bit garbled. Re-phrasing of that sentence and a more comprehensive summary of GMO yield implications, including implications in the developing world, could provide a clearer and more balanced overview in the context where Gurian-Sherman’s findings are invoked. Schafhirt (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not the article for that topic - this is a very high level discussion of all GMOs. This is already discussed in Genetically modified food controversies, in the Developing world section. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:Schafhirt I am not sure which source and content Jytdog is dismissing. Can you be a bit clearer on what you are wanting to introduce and the source please.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I see Jytdog’s point. However, I think something should be done to fix this, because the garbled “However, ...” sentence invokes the UCS Gurian-Sherman paper in ostensible refutation of the concern relating to impoverished countries, but this is misleading, as the UCS paper’s data analysis is not relevant to GMOs in such countries, whereas relevant meta-analyses do indicate yield benefits of GMOs in developing countries and in countries with poor pest management practices. The simplest way of dealing with this would be to revert the “However, ...” sentence, which was inserted on 1 August 2015.Schafhirt (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I believe we are talking about the content inserted here.[8] Is that correct?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Schafhirt (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that it isn't summarising the section that Jytdog linked to, and concerns about the FRINGE views of the UOCS in regards to GMOs (see this) I think it should be removed. SmartSE (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Are there any objections to removing this? SmartSE (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the term GMO and what it describes

This is a request for information to possibly be added to the text. There is currently some discussion about the appropriate use of the term GMO to describe all organisms who have had artificially selected traits propagated through any method, rather than just transgenetics. Part of the argument is that GMO is too broad a term scientifically to be limited to what it has been applied to colloquially (just transgesesis vs including mutagenesis, or even selective breeding)

Reasons for the argument aside, I was looking without success for some evidence of the first use of the term GMO, reason for the application of that term only to transgenesis, was the term coined by the scientific community (who i would have thought would have applied the more accurate term genetically engineered organism, capturing the difference between deliberate and controlled change and random or even accidental change) or the agricultural community, or by the anti-biotech community looking for a good scareword, etc.

I think if _credible_ information on the term's usage was gathered it would make a valuable addition to the page. Limited to factual information on demonstrated usage it should be manageable while maintaining NPOV. Nrjank (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The terminology reflects the deeply misunderstood reality. All plants are GM, most by "crossbreeding". (Remember the pomato?) Only recently have we learned to edit genomes and/or to move genes across species boundaries. The terminology has yet to catch up. It's like calling solar "renewable". The sun is dying. It will not renew. Wind depends on the sun. It renews only over short timescales. Fossil fuels do renew as organisms recycle. Lfstevens (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I've made the joke about petrol being a renewable resource before, just being a matter of timescale and perspective. That said, I recognize that GMO is an extremely broad term to use for a very narrow definition. Word usage develops with time and appropriateness/intent doesn't always get a say in the matter. If colloquial usage that "GMO = transgenesis" is accepted as the established definition of 'a genetically modified organism', legally if not 'technically', then that just is the way it is. Hence my interest in the history of using the term GMO for the extremely narrow definition of 'just transgenesis'. It also fails to capture whether or not cisgenesis will be included under the GMO definition for the various laws and discussions, not to mention whether it should also include radiation and chemical mutagenesis. I think it's fairly understandable that the term refers to direct intent to modify the genome, with more of an active role in the genetic makeup than simple cross-breeding, but yes, by technical meanings of the word all deliberate breeding for trait selection is genetic modification. Genetic engineering would have been a much more appropriate term for the things that would reasonably be called deliberate genetic manipulation. The verbal accuracy problem is really the word 'modified'.

All that said, my thoughts are that a history in the usage of the term would make a valuable addition to the discussion of the topic, which has recently been expanding to include what should and should not be included within scope of the term. If this grows into enough of a debate (outside this talk page), it may warrant a section on 'debate about accuracy of the term' either here or on the controversy page, but NPOV historical references on the use of the term and what it describes would fit here I think. Nrjank (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a history, but "genetically modified" vs "genetically engineered" is covered more fully than here at genetically modified food (see first sentence, and first section, "Definition"). --Tsavage (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This seems a clear presentation (from a pro-biotech source), not so much for the history, but to clarify that there is a difference between forced hybridization and new GM technology:

What is the difference between genetic modification and conventional breeding?

Traditionally, a plant breeder tries to exchange genes between two plants to produce offspring that have desired traits. This is done by transferring the male (pollen) of one plant to the female organ of another. This cross breeding, however, is limited to exchanges between the same or very closely related species. It can also take a long time to achieve desired results and frequently, characteristics of interest do not exist in any related species. GM technology enables plant breeders to bring together in one plant useful genes from a wide range of living sources, not just from within the crop species or from closely related plants. This powerful tool allows plant breeders to do faster what they have been doing for years – generate superior plant varieties – although it expands the possibilities beyond the limits imposed by conventional plant breeding.[9] petrarchan47คุก 06:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

FDA's new definition of GMO

From the NYT:

"But if anything, the F.D.A. further complicated the issue by distinguishing the term “genetic engineering” from “genetic modification.”

"F.D.A. considers the term ‘genetic modification’ to be a much broader term that encompasses other means of altering the genome of an organism including selective breeding, and lab-based in vitro methods,” the agency said in its announcement.

"...given the agency’s definition of genetic modification, non-G.M.O labeling on thousands of products now in stores would technically be false because they contain plants genetically modified over centuries through hybridization and other conventional breeding techniques. For instance, under the F.D.A.’s definition, a corn chip made from conventional corn is genetically modified, but not genetically engineered — an argument that the biotech industry has been making for years.

“They’re conflating what is a very new and novel technology with traditional types of breeding, which is simply crossing different varieties of, say, corn,” said Andrew Kimbrell, founder and executive director of the Center for Food Safety, which is lobbying for mandatory labeling. “It’s kind of like saying an abacus is very much like a computer.” petrarchan47คุก 18:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest edit war

The arbs have directed us to limit reverts to one per day. I.e., no edit wars. We failed that test today. Instead of war, please bring your disputes to Talk where we can search for an acceptable solution without producing whiplash in our audience. (How dumb do we look if one reader refers another reader to check a piece that (oops!) no longer contains the point that generated the reference?) Bring your arguments to Talk and live happily ever after! Lfstevens (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus that there is no consensus on GMO safety

How about the following change so the term "general scientific agreement" is preserved?

"While there is concern among the public and some scientists as to the safety of GMOs there is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from these crops poses no greater risk to human health than..."

Vergil Den 20:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)vergilden

Alternatively,

I noticed that the GMO controversy sections of many of the GMO related articles vary. Perhaps we should harmonize each on the GMO Food version which seems to be the most balanced and thorough.

"The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the use of food and other products derived from genetically modified crops and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. The disputes involve consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, activists and scientists. The key areas of controversy are whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, objectivity of scientific research and publication and the effects on health, the environment, pesticide resistance, farmers and on global food supplies. Other concerns include contamination of the conventional food supply, rigor of the regulatory process and control of the food supply by GM seed companies. Additional concerns include the impacts of conflicts of interest on research outcomes.

There is general scientific agreement that food on the market from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food.

However, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine ("AAEM") released a position paper calling for a moratorium on GM foods pending independent long term studies to investigate the role of GM foods on human health. The authors asserted that "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects." The paper cited numerous animal studies showing adverse effects and posited that the biological plausibility, as defined by Hill’s criteria, in light of this data is that adverse health effects are also caused in humans. A 2011 study found maternal/fetal pesticide exposure associated with GM crops in Quebec. A leading critique, Gilles-Éric Séralini of the University of Caen, and his team reported that rats fed GM corn developed tumors and organ damage in 2012 in the Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. After reanalyses of the results, and the paper was retracted by the publisher, Elsevier, on the ground that the study consisted of a limited number of test samples (Sprague-Dawley rats) to make any conclusive evidence on the adverse effect of GM on the rats. Sprague-Dawley rats are known to develop tumours even under normal conditions. But Séralini defended his study and republished the same findings in Environmental Sciences Europe in 2014, published by SpringerOpen.

Labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in 64 countries. However, the US does not require this. The FDA's policy is to require a label only given significant differences in composition or health impacts. They have not identified such differences in any food currently approved for sale.

Some medical and environmental groups claim that the potential long-term impact on human health have not been adequately assessed and propose mandatory labeling or a moratorium on such products. The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), disputes the claim of scientific consensus on the relative safety of GM food, and that research issues due to intellectual property rights, limited access to research material, differences in methods, analysis and the interpretation of data, it is not possible to state whether GMOs are generally safe or unsafe, and instead must be a judged on case-by-case basis. The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council also determined that GM food safety needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and noted the limited ability of scientists to predict "adverse consequences of genetic change".

One particular concern, in regards to the environment, is that GMOs designed to decrease the problem with weeds aggravate it instead. Palmer amaranth is a weed that competes with cotton. A native of the southwest, it has traveled east and was first found resistant to glyphosate in 2006. Glyphosate-tolerant cotton was introduced in the 1990s.

One study did not show statistically significant evidence of sponsorship conflict of interest influence on study outcomes, but did find author affiliation to be strongly correlated to study outcome, concluding that "articles where a COI was identified show a tendency to produce outcomes favorable to the associated commercial interests.""

Vergil Den 17:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As you have already been told before, the controversies article is where the main content is based and the other articles have just a summary of the lede of the controversies article per WP:SUMMARY. Also keep in mind that we do not give undue weight to WP:FRINGE theories such as there not being consensus on the safety of GMOs, not global warming, vaccines, cause autism, etc. That is why many of the things you are looking for are not included in the articles. Please slow down and read the relevant policies and guidelines that have been mentioned to you already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. As I stated to you before, I proposed two possible approaches:

1. Add that "some" scientists disagree and include the citations from US News & World Report and Environmental Sciences Europe OR

2. Standardize all the GMO summary sections on the version from the GMO Food article

Vergil Den 18:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Vergilden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Genetically modified organism. 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/20140120113716/http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/policy/GMFood.pdf to http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/policy/GMFood.pdf

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} 02:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Dubious

This is regarding the statement that "the first genetically modified human (modified mitochondrial DNA) was born on July 21, 1997" sourced to this. I know there is a broad definition of genetic modification that would cover this and effectively every domesticated animal in the world, but beyond a short historical mention I don't think it is practical to treat selective breeding as a part of the GM suite of articles. Anyway this is what the article itself says about the designation.

• The Department of Health, for instance, ruled earlier this year that the Government does not define mitochondrial donation as a form of genetic modification,
• From the author of the paper that uses the term "genetic modification" that started this “A good question! I personally do not think it was [genetic modification], because no genes were altered” and "The language in the abstract should have been removed during the printing process. This was an oversight”

Maybe a short mention in Gene therapy#Human genetic engineering, but it is out of place here alongside the first genetically modified plants and animals. AIRcorn (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It was added by Thevideodrome with this diff. They are a banned sock puppet of an indefinately blocked user so I am just going to remove it. AIRcorn (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Zika connection to GMO (not passing the bar at this point)

Some news papers are posting articles openly connecting Zika to GMO mosquitoes. [10] I was considering inclusion but then went to verify and found http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2016/01/31/genetically-modified-mosquitoes-didnt-start-zika-ourbreak Enough for me to not make edits. Editors wanting to bring this in, should review the latter, and be able to get past it. I don't think it merits inclusion in "controversies" at this juncture either. Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion: proposal to change "scientific agreement" to "scientific consensus" on GMO food safety in all GMO articles

A fresh discussion has started with a proposal for revision to this sentence:

There is general scientific agreement that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis. [citations omitted]

to:

There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.[citations omitted]

The discussion is taking place here at at the talk page of Genetically modified crops. Please comment there. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

non-transgenic plant mods

I added this bit to History of genetic engineering:

In 2015 CRISPR and TALENs was used to modify plant genomes. Chinese labs used it to create a fungus-resistant wheat and boost rice yields, while a U.K. group used it to tweak a barley gene that could help produce drought-resistant varieties. When used to precisely remove material from DNA without adding genes from other species, the result is not subject the lengthy and expensive regulatory process associated with GMOs. While CRISPR may use foreign DNA to aid the editing process, the second generation of edited plants contain none of that DNA. Researchers celebrated the acceleration because it may allow them to "keep up" with rapidly evolving pathogens. The U.S. Department of Agriculture stated that some examples of gene-edited corn, potatoes and soybeans are not subject to existing regulations. Other review bodies have yet to make statements.

I was thinking it would also fit in the Plant section of this piece. Comments? Lfstevens (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to downloaded some papers about CRISPR with the intention of adding information to the history article, so thanks for doing that. See no reason not to add it to the plant section or even a trimmed version in history. There is also the Genetic engineering techniques article where the details can be expanded on. AIRcorn (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I would reword the mention of Chinese labs boosting rice yields; until their modification makes it past trials and into widespread use, the GM rice has not yet boosted yields.Dialectric (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Either we talk about the research projects or we don't. I see no reason to talk about fungus but not yield. This does not say that these projects are available. Lfstevens (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Then let's not talk about them. There is no reason that these projects are more notable than dozens of other GM organisms in development. The fact that they use CRISPR is novel, but unless there are entire articles about these specific Chinese projects, I don't see why they should get undue weight relative to other not-yet-commercialized-or-approved GMOs.Dialectric (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the specifics are unnecessary. Note that the source says "in efforts to boost yields" not that they have actually achieved anything. It also says that they "could avoid the lengthy and expensive regulatory process associated with GMOs" and "The big question is whether CRISPR crops will be governed by the same regulations as GMOs." - rather different to what the text states. This open access review would be a much better source (maybe alongside the current one). SmartSE (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion of Rules for RfC on GMO food safety

A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety language based on the five proposals at GM crops here. This RfC will affect the current language in paragraph 2 of the Controversy section of this article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} and Laser brain (talk) have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms

This is a notice that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms is open for public comment. AIRcorn (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Genetically modified organism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029191933/http://www.ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/25239/1/018_33.pdf to http://www.ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/25239/1/018_33.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140326024622/http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/BGER/pdf/volume_25/11-Prather.pdf to http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ncmh/BGER/pdf/volume_25/11-Prather.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140411035138/https://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/understanding/biology/Pages/biology.aspx to https://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/understanding/biology/Pages/biology.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141106050820/http://www.classicalmedicinejournal.com/the-classical-medicine-journal/2011/4/13/genetically-modified-cows-producing-human-milk.html to http://www.classicalmedicinejournal.com/the-classical-medicine-journal/2011/4/13/genetically-modified-cows-producing-human-milk.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150430100830/http://phys.org:80/news194539934.html to http://phys.org/news194539934.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 08:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there any consensus that GMO foods should undergo any unique scrutiny?

A lot of these seem to be begging the question. Aren't things like food handling and preparation much greater threats that need to be monitored that cause measurable harm measured in deaths and numbers of illnesses?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please explain your question. I assume you are not asking editors whether THEY think GMOs should be tested. We can only ask what the RS says about the topic, right? Have you reviewed the RS? The answer is easy to find there, e.g. the RS mentioned here. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Genetically modified tomatoes are a separate page

I recently added this to the page for vaccine. More complex plants such as tobacco, potato, tomato and banana, can have genes inserted that cause them to produce vaccines usable for humans. There is a seperate page for genetically modified tomatoes; should there be one for other fruits and vegetables?

RfC of interest

Editors here might find this RfC of interest, Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#RfC_Is_including_a_quotation_which_describes_GM_food_as_.27poison.27_acceptable.

Third paragraph in Genetically modified organism#Controversy

Per the recently closed GMO RfC, I have replaced the second paragraph of this article with the RfC's Proposal 1, which was successful and implemented per discretionary sanction. However, since the paragraph after, saying that a few organizations dispute the scientific results and some other information contradicting the scientific consensus, may not be neutral, I would like some input on what to do with the third paragraph. — Esquivalience (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

They are WP:FRINGE views conflicting with the scientific consensus, but notable ones. I'd say leave it for now for the purposes of the RfC close, and the lede material can be worked out further on the controversies page if need be. I think some changes could be made to make it clearer they are fringe views, but I'd just say there's no WP:DEADLINE right now since the consensus language is locked in now at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Paragraph 3 is not "fringe". I have restored deleted material that was not subject to the RfC here. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

the term GMO is usually not used in basic genetic research

as a term GMO is not used in basic molecular biology research. for geneticists it is generally simply mutant (versus wild type). GMO is an industrial term. So these things need to be clarified, in many places throughout the text there are references to research usage. --ArazZeynili (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

According to Richard Dahl who wrote To Label or Not to Label: California Prepares to Vote on Genetically Engineered. “It is estimated that 60-70% of the crops that are on grocery store shelves are GMO crops. But what number of people are truly aware of Genetically Modified Foods being located on grocery store shelves. In a recent article produced by Rutgers University they found some interesting statistics, “Despite the abundance of products with genetically modi ed ingredients in the marketplace today, only half of the respondents (52%) were aware that genetically modified food products are currently for sale in supermarkets “(Rutgers6). That is a staggeringly large portion of grocery store shoppers that are unaware of GMOs being located on their store shelve. It gets worse from their, In the article the found that 25% of the the people in the survey believed that such products were not available to be purchased in supermarkets.(Rutgers.). The US as a whole has an issue of misinformation given to the general public about Genetically Modified Organisms, something that needs addressed and resolved.

<ref>Dahl, Richard. To Label or Not to Label: California Prepares to Vote on Genetically Engineered Foods. Environmental Health Perspective. Environmental Health Perspective. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.<ref>

<ref>"High-Risk Crops & Inputs." The NonGMO Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2016. "Most Americans Pay Little Attention to Genetically Modified Foods, Survey Says." Most Americans Pay Little Attention to Genetically Modified Foods, Survey Says | Media Relations. Rutgers University, 1 Nov. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.<ref>

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Genetically modified organism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151021145249/https://www.globalchange.umich.edu:80/globalchange2/current/workspace/sect008/s8g5/history.htm to http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/workspace/sect008/s8g5/history.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jag.igr.poznan.pl/2007-Volume-48/1/pdf/2007_Volume_48_1-47-60.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://journals.royalsociety.org/openurl.asp?genre=article&issn=0962-8436&volume=354&issue=1386&spage=963
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090816010157/https://pmbcii.psy.cmu.edu:80/evans/2006_Lia.pdf to http://pmbcii.psy.cmu.edu/evans/2006_Lia.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nus.edu.sg/corporate/research/gallery/research12.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oxitec.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/OXITEC-Newsletter-March-11-Final.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Mammals

There's also research going on towards creating the optimal human (ie with a perfect human genome). Such a person would not have any genetic disorders, and could theoretically be cloned. Perhaps of intrest to be mentioned in the article:

• https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535661/engineering-the-perfect-baby/
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julio-pabon/the-closet-perfect-human-_b_6304366.html

KVDP (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Environmental Issues

Genetically modified organisms are very dangerous to the environment. With all of the chemicals that are being put onto the plants are damaging the environment. There are people who say that the herbicides are not supposed to be found into the environment. Studies have shown that there are traces of herbicides in the ground. The chemicals are also causing a high toxicity to the plants and to the environment. With everything that we as humans are doing to create more nutrient filled plants and more plants, is causing more damage than helping. With GMOs, people should stop using them and getting people to refuse to eating them. GMOs are not only bad for the environment, but also human intake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah0114 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Genetically modified organism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5k5aYeGAs?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjag.igr.poznan.pl%2F2007-Volume-48%2F1%2Fpdf%2F2007_Volume_48_1-47-60.pdf to http://jag.igr.poznan.pl/2007-Volume-48/1/pdf/2007_Volume_48_1-47-60.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121027101102/http://protalix.com/procellex-platform/overview-procellex-platform.asp to http://protalix.com/procellex-platform/overview-procellex-platform.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529030847/http://www.globes.co.il:80/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000745325&fid=1725 to http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000745325&fid=1725

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

What about a List of genetically modified organisms?

What do you think of creating (or helping out with) a List of genetically modified organisms (or with a similar title) that's intended to contain a list of all known genetically modified organisms?

With all I mean really anything whose genetic code was modified artificially − from crops to plants, animals, humans and bacteria.

Some subsections would just be a link to another list. Such as (potentially) List of varieties of genetically modified maize and List of genetically modified crops.
Some would or could not list all the organisms individually but various ranges / subcategories of it if it doesn't make much sense to list them individually for whatever reason.
But its main focus/intend would be notable individual organisms such as Ice-minus bacteria and Amflora.

I also posted this at the talk page of genetic engineering and forwarded users there to come here to discuss.

--Fixuture (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what utility this would serve? There are probably thousands of genetically modified organism that are used for research purposes or are in various stages of development. There are also lots of modified bacteria used in industry, but outside them there are currently very few commercially available ones that are not covered by List of genetically modified crops (Glofish and AquAdvantage salmon spring to mind). Template:Genetic engineering covers most of these pretty well. AIRcorn (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Well for tracking purposes. For a centralized place for information of the existing genetically modified organisms - e.g. for identification of the different types and uses or potential risky ones as well as new ones. Also one can't expect people to do journalism on gm organisms yet unknown to the public when said is not even informed on the already disclosed existing ones etc. --Fixuture (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Would a category be better? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

What Aircorn mentioned is the reason why a list wouldn't work because it would get into WP:INDISCRIMINATE outside of crops. Best to just describe what GM organisms are used for in this article whether it's research purposes, agricultural use, pharmaceuticals, etc. Better to describe in this article whatever achieves WP:DUE. I agree with Trypto above that a category is the best way to go on this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I think I'm convinced that a new list page would not be particularly useful. But thanks for thinking of the suggestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: & @Kingofaces43: Too bad. Maybe the list could be shortened somehow (e.g. summaries) so that it wouldn't be a very long indescriminate list? A category doesn't really work as most GMOs don't have their own article on Wikipedia. Also there already is Category:Genetically modified organisms which however also contains general articles about the topic and articles about the various types of GMOs (which only might contain some examples in their article bodies). --Fixuture (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem you are describing in arbitrarily selecting what makes it into the list is why such a list would fail WP:GNG, or specifically WP:LISTN. If a particular type of GMO is of sufficient WP:WEIGHT according to sources, that would be reason to include mention of it at this article with a short write-up. Remember that this is an encyclopedia. Our goal here isn't to list all or most examples of GMOs, but rather write about the noteworthy ones within relevant articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

GM cattle, modified to improve digestion

Do these exist ? See Talk:Environmental_impact_of_meat_production KVDP (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@KVDP: Generally, WP:Reference desk is the place to ask general questions, as opposed to discussing improvement of this page. For our purposes here, it depends on whether there are reliable sources about GM cattle. (You could try your preferred search engine.) I haven't looked, but I suspect not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

Change "In the US, by 2014, 94% of the planted area of soybeans, 96% of cotton and 93% of corn were genetically modified varieties." to "In the US, by 2014, 94% of soybean varieties, 96% of cotton varieties and 93% of corn varieties were genetically modified."

The source clearly states that the percentages in the excel are a percentage of varieties, not acreage: "Many people are interested in information about global genetically engineered (GE) acreage. USDA does not collect these data." Countraymond (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked carefully at the source. Insofar as I can tell, the sentence that you quote is about how USDA collects data for the US, but not for the rest of the world, ie, "global[ly]". The first spreadsheet in the source actually labels the data as "acreage". It also would not make sense that the data would be as percentages of all varieties, because it would be difficult to quantify the true total number of varieties that might be found throughout the world – after all, it's not just a matter of counting the items for sale in a seed catalog. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Genetically modified organism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jag.igr.poznan.pl/2007-Volume-48/1/pdf/2007_Volume_48_1-47-60.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102194844/http://www.idpublications.com/journals/PDFs/CIMID/CIMID_MostDown_1.pdf to http://www.idpublications.com/journals/pdfs/cimid/cimid_mostdown_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130216041212/http://www.united-academics.org/magazine/health-medicine/killing-liver-cancer-with-a-genetically-engineered-virus/ to http://www.united-academics.org/magazine/health-medicine/killing-liver-cancer-with-a-genetically-engineered-virus/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://r2m.nus.edu.sg/cos/o.x?c=%2Fr2m%2Fpagetree&func=view&rid=5858
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oxitec.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/OXITEC-Newsletter-March-11-Final.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326015714/http://ideaireland.org/library/idea-position-on-genetically-modified-foods/ to http://ideaireland.org/library/idea-position-on-genetically-modified-foods/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)