Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Useless Fluff

Genetic modification can also be used to remove allergens from foods, potentially reducing the risk of food allergies. A hypo-allergenic strain of soybean was tested in 2003 and shown to lack the major allergen that is found in the beans. A similar approach has been tried in ryegrass, which produces pollen that is a major cause of hay fever: here a fertile GM grass was produced that lacked the main pollen allergen, demonstrating that the production of hypoallergenic grass is also possible. Is not controversial. Why was it called edit warring when I removed it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You deleted it here and that deletion was reverted here. For you to add it back without bringing it to Talk first is slow motion edit warring. Perhaps you forgot that you deleted it before. Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you roughly highlight why you think this is useless? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me to belong on the page, because it is clearly about the subject matter and it fits per WP:BALANCE. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no controversy that GMO can be created to remove allergens. It is just useless fluff to praise the benefits of GMO. It belongs in Usefulness of GMO foods. I haven't looked at the whole article. I probably won't bother because any other promotional fluff will just be added back if I remove it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

1) The abstract of the first article cited: "Allergenic reactions to proteins expressed in GM crops has been one of the prominent concerns among biotechnology critics and a concern of regulatory agencies. Soybeans like many plants have intrinsic allergens that present problems for sensitive people. Current GM crops, including soybean, have not been shown to add any additional allergenic risk beyond the intrinsic risks already present. Biotechnology can be used to characterize and eliminate allergens naturally present in crops. Biotechnology has been used to remove a major allergen in soybean demonstrating that genetic modification can be used to reduce allergenicity of food and feed. This provides a model for further use of GM approaches to eliminate allergens." 2) The lede of the article used to say that the controversy is about the relative advantages and disadvantages of food from GMOs (it did, until you deleted the word "relative"). The way the article is currently constructed is based on the idea in that was in the lede, that there is a whole slew of both advantages and disadvantages to GMOs, and different people weigh them differently. So the article describes advantages and disadvantages. I think you are perhaps equating "controversy" with "what some people hate" and they don't mean the same thing.Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no controversy about the advantages though. The advantages were probably just added to the lead and the rest of the article as Monsanto promotional fluff. They belong in a Monsanto promotional fluff article. Most of them aren't sourced as being controversies so they shouldn't be included.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I correct to summarise that you want to remove anything remotely positive? Controversy isn't the same thing as criticism or critical aspects only. Have a look at Global warming controversy perhaps. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The source created the soybeans himself. That is not a very good source to use. Just self-promotional fluff.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

His boss is a suit at Monsanto. Very biased source indeed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Funded by Monsanto. This gets more horrid by the minute.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Why are you showing me these links? What does this have to do with anything? It's not "self-promotional fluff", it's a peer reviewed paper about work which has been done. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

According to scientificamerican.com any studies not approved by Monsanto are impossible without facing legal action. How can we possibly balance the science if it is illegal to do so?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Did you think <redacted BLP unsourced> magicked himself up some corn? I have no idea why you are linking me to this or what relevance it has to the topic at hand. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I found a link to a contract. I don't no if it has been doctored or not or how RS the site is. Scientific American reads it as ..."their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research." How can the research be NPOV in this case.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As editors, we are to report what reliable sources say, not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. BlackHades (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Scientific American considered reliable?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for contracts to contain unenforceable or hardly enforceable provisions, which is probably the case here. Incidentally, with regard to the above discussion, the article should be balanced and it should be able to mention some positives as well as negatives. II | (t - c) 21:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there controversy over the positives? If not then why not just paste all of the Monsanto sales brochures? It is a controversy article not a POV war with each side being allowed free advertising. Should we add a Green Peace and PETA section as well? They can add more negative to balance the Monsanto positives.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Probably the case here?" Do you have a source? Scientific American says the opposite. Has en:wp decided if it is RS?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about IRWolfie's comment and explaining why we have negative studies on GMO even if these contracts exist, such as Seralini's study. How did that occurr if there's veto power? It occurs because contracts aren't always enforceable, especially internationally. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have an extreme intimidation effect or results in litigation with inconsistent results based on the jurisdiction. This controversy is already discussed in the article (Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Scientific_publishing) and was reported on by a few organizations. II | (t - c) 23:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have sources?--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

? Did you not read what he said? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you expect a response?--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I'll admit I am speculating as to why there are negative studies despite this contractual veto. II | (t - c) 03:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

II, I went and read the paper. It is funny on this, but apparently they grew the seed into crop in Canada, and then imported the grain to France, where the studies were done. No mention of where they got the seed they planted! Funny. Tried to search for this but there is so much crap about the affair that it will take a long time to sort through. The paper says "The maize grown (MON-00603-6 commonly named NK603) was authorized for unconfined release into the environment and use as a livestock feed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (Decision Document 2002-35). We confirm that the location is not privately-owned or protected in any way and that the field studies did not involve endangered or protected species. The GM maize was authorized for import into the European Union (CE 258/97 regulation).... The varieties of maize used in this study were the R-tolerant NK603 (Monsanto Corp., USA), and its nearest isogenic non-transgenic control. These two types of maize were grown under similar normal conditions, in the same location, spaced at a sufficient distance to avoid cross-contamination. The genetic nature, as well as the purity of the GM seeds and harvested material, was confirmed by qPCR analysis of DNA samples. One field of NK603 was treated with R at 3 L ha−1 (WeatherMAX, 540 g/L of glyphosate, EPA Reg. 524-537), and another field of NK603 was not treated with R. Corns were harvested when the moisture content was less than 30% and were dried at a temperature below 30 °C. From these three cultivations of maize, laboratory rat chow was made based on the standard diet A04 (Safe, France)." Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Is anyone still suggesting a change? I'm confused. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried to with the OP. This is just one instance of material in the article that is not controversial. The article seems to be a huge coatrack of good things about GMO. I agree that there are many good things about it but they don't belong in an article about the controversies of GMO. I tried to remove it and it was reverted without discussion. This article should not be a huge ad for Monsanto and other GMO corporations. Just the facts Ma'am, and only the controversial ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

take these accusations to, say, WP:RFC/U, not the talk page
Canoe, please! Real people working here in good faith inserted that content. There is no way to respond to this because there is zero AGF in it. This is what you just promised not to do anymore...Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I am very sorry if you misunderstood me. I am just asking why we have material in this article that is not considered controversial. I think this is a good faith question.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That, my friend, is a good faith question!! Thank you. I can and will respond. Your question goes to the topic of the article. So, first of all, you have made the point more than once, and it is a good one, that the title is GM Food Controversies. I have struggled with that title myself, and will open a new section on that below... Anyway, within that, the first sentence says "The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages of GM bla bla bla. " Right? "relative advantages and disadvantages." If it were 100% good, there would be no controversy; if it were 100% bad, there would be no controversy. The article is not called "The bad side of GM bla bla bla". And what I have tried to do in edits I have made here, is -- stating things on all sides with a NPOV, using the best sources I can find that would be acceptable to both sides, to say the pros and cons of the boatload of the various issues involved, giving due weight according to the best reliable sources. That is what I have tried to do, and others have too. And so the article is what it is today... still a work in progress, always needing people to come improve it, including places where i and others have f*cked up. So that is why the material is there. To be honest, I have wondered if it should stay, as currently the use of genetic engineering to take allergens out of food is entirely theoretical, not commercial. I didn't object to its removal when you did it, if I recall, because I have never loved that content. Thank you again for asking a real, straightfoward question. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, I am really hoping you will respond to what I wrote here - please talk with me. Thanks. And Tippygoomba, what do you think about the validity of including this, when it is only theoretical? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your suggested change. If you have a problem with that, try a WP:RFC. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That is why we are discussing it. I am wondering why we have an article full of material that is not controversial.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You've only given a few sentences, the claim that "we have an article full of material that is not controversial" is too vague to address. That particular paragraph, in the view of the editors here, is on topic. You have not raised any policy objections and you belief that it does not belong is not shared by others. The implication you give "it's non-controversial so it doesn't belong" is a strawman, you've said nothing that warrants discussion. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by strawman. We don't need policy to tell us that television advertising doesn't belong in an article about unpopular television shows. If the shows are unpopular we don't spam the article with advertising to make it look better. Another section that should go is the religion one. They don't find it controversial then don't include it. We don't have a section about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny so why include religion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I mean strawman. In particular, your premise "things that are not controversial don't belong in the article" is false. Your analogy are unconvincing. I've removed the religion section. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So hard to keep up. I am opposed to this removal. There are a few issues with religion. The big one is probably the messing with nature fallacy, but there is also the issue of "unclean" food being mixed together (i.e. pig genes added to something making it unfit for some religious people). If anything this section should be expanded. AIRcorn (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That is the same argument I get for not including a health recall in the health section. Articles on controversies should only include controversies and not propaganda from Monsanto brochures.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your definition of controversy seem to greatly differ from what everyone else considers the term to be. Controversy does not mean only negative views on the subject matter. Advantages of GM food are not in the article because they are "propaganda from Monsanto brochures". They're in the article because they are related to the subject matter, exists in reliable sources, are certainly part of the controversy, and requires weight per WP:DUE. BlackHades (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"In 2012, Dr. Flowerchild claims that GMO tomatoes attacked a woman and killed her. Later studies found that the woman fell down the stairs and her husband covered her in GMO tomatoes to gain fame and sell his fringe books to the gullible masses. GMO tomatoes are popular in 99% of restaurants because they taste better, cost less, and are healthier than most organic ones." Do you see how the last sentence is fluff that looks look it came from a brochure?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That isn't in the article. It would be more useful to use examples that actually exist in the article. BlackHades (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Titling a section "useless fluff" is not the best way to go about getting a change. I personally am ambivalent about this paragraph as it does seem a little bit out of place (unlike this one that was also removed. I would not be opposed to its removal. AIRcorn (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Archive time

We should discuss this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I sometimes like to speed up archiving when a talk page is quiet for a long time, but for cases like here, I tend to think that's it's helpful not to archive too rapidly, because with very active discussion, it can be helpful to look back at previous talk without having to go to the archives. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, that was a really odd revert. The archive was changed from 15d to 30d because on going discussions were getting archived. Is there a reason why you want to change archive time to 1d? BlackHades (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If consensus is needed for an archive time then my !vote is for the 30 days. There are some interesting conversations ongoing here, why would we want to archive them before they are done. AIRcorn (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

article title?

Title is fine.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Canoe has mentioned a couple of times in edit notes etc (for instance deleting content not related to food) that the article is called "Genetically modified food controversies". I have always struggled with this title a bit, and I think others have too, as the article's first paragraph which has been stable for a long time, reflects the broader topics involved in this: "The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified food, genetically modified crops used to produce food and other goods, and other uses of genetically modified organisms in food production. The dispute involves consumers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified (GM) food are: whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the effect of GM crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of GM crops for farmers, and the role of GM crops in feeding the world population." The controversy is much bigger than food per se. I have not messed with the title because it is fair to say that for many, "food" is kind of at the heart of the controversy.... but one could easily say as well that environmental issues are. Others emphasize regulatory regimes, economics, etc. I've been wanting to raise this to see if any better ideas pop. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages". Is that phrase sourced or should we find a more appropriate one that is? The controversy is over both the advantages and disadvantages so the whole phrase should be removed and replaced. The way is worded now it seems like there are no controversies over the advantages.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

With respect to sourcing, it is my understanding that the scope of a wikipedia article is an editorial decision. With respect to rest of what you write, I don't understand what you mean, sorry. Jytdog (talk)

What about broadening it up and just calling it "Genetic Engineering Controversies". The medicine and research side of it is not terribly controversial beyond what is already mentioned here at the moment so I don't see it will make this article much longer than it already is. AIRcorn (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Or if it is "controversies" part that is the problem then we could call it a "debate". AIRcorn (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Controversy is a standard term used in wikipedia for articles of this type, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I think "controversies" is indeed the right noun here. The question I am raising is "GM food" or something else? "genetic engineering" is interesting...I would be OK with that. Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Since this article is too large already then those others would probably need separate articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, do you have better ideas about titles? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the title. It is en:wp standard and readers should expect to find it under that title.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, then Canoe, you won't be deleting more content because it is not directly relevant to "food" as you have in the past? thx. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If it isn't a controversy about GMO food then it shouldn't be in an article about GMO food controversies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening a new section to discuss Scope which is different from title. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Article scope

Another general, stepping back and looking at the big picture question, somewhat related to the Title section I opened earlier.

And I start the same way as the Title discussion. The first paragraph says: "The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified food, genetically modified crops used to produce food and other goods, and other uses of genetically modified organisms in food production. The dispute involves consumers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified (GM) food are: whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the effect of GM crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of GM crops for farmers, and the role of GM crops in feeding the world population."

Broadly, the article has sections on Public Perception, Scientific publishing (dealing with the question of independent scientific research); Health (mainly focused on the issue of whether GM food is harmful to people or not); Environment, Economic issues, Regulation, and Other (which is a real hodge podge). In general, each of these sections deals with pros and cons, states the scientific consensus where it is exists, and states minority scientific positions, as well as we all popular (as in, among the people) positions.

This was the result of a pretty major revision a few months ago that was extensively discussed at that time. Here and again here.

Canoe has written things like "There is no controversy about the advantages though. The advantages were probably just added to the lead and the rest of the article as Monsanto promotional fluff. They belong in a Monsanto promotional fluff article." (this dif) So - is it reasonable that the article has cons and pros?

More broadly, are there ways the article could be organized better, or differently? Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't decide what the scope should be the sources do. If the phrase "dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages" isn't in any of the sources then it should be a combined paraphrase of sources. Can you provide a source that claims that the advantages are controversial? It should read "the public debate over the controversial aspects of GMO food".--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to look for a source, but Golden Rice is the best example off the top of my head where even something advantageous is considered controversial. The controversy goes both ways, take economics for example (some say it has provided no benefit to farmers, while others say it has provided lots of benefits). The same goes for the environment section. If we say that it is controversial because it has led to an increase in herbicides we should provide the counter that the herbicides that have increased are the least harmful ones (due weight to eachpoint of course). Health is a bit different as to my knowledge there are no GMOs marketed that are aimed at improving health yet. So the question is do we include potential health improving GMO foods (food containing vaccines, removed allergen and increased nutrients are all at various stages of developement). This is different to including counterclaims (which I think is essential), like if there is a claim that GMO's are harmful then the scientific consensus must be presented. I don't know, the potential benefits should be includedsomewhere, but maybe this is not the best article. AIRcorn (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, this is not the best article. Feel free to create Advantages and disadvantages of GMO food if editors wish to include spam from sales brochures.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Taco bell GMO Recall

First section

Hi canoe

There was already content on the Starlink/Taco Bell incident. The current content already makes it clear, that Starlink was not approved for human consumption and the appearance of Starlink in the food supply was an "escape" as per the section title. The article is very long and we have worked hard to make it a more manageable length (please see the archives) - generally strong justification would be needed for repeating content; in the context of trying to keep the length manageable we need really strong justification. Please discuss, and let's hear from others, too. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC) (edited my comment to "see the" in "Please see the archives" Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC))

"The article is very long..." Should we consider a split then? The GMO did not 'escape'; if you read the source it was stored in the same elevator as fit corn and they claim that that was not the corn they ordered. It was recalled for health reasons by the FDA so it belongs in the heath section not the environment section covered by EPAs. It was a big issue and to stuff it way down in the article seems like it is being swept under the rug. It was the first GMO recall, companies lost a lot of business, there was a lawsuit decided in favour of TB so perhaps it warrants it own article to keep this one small. If one article is too large for this controversy it will probably only get longer as it seems like it won't end soon. Reverting my edit of well sourced material that our readers should see about the subject seems very bad faith. I may tack this and other issues that I consider as 'censorship' onto the Arbcom discussion on it. --Canoe1967 (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for talking. However, I strongly object to your bringing 'bad faith' into this -- it is completely unnecessary. I have provided my reasoning for what I have said and am happy to keep discussing. Please don't inject incivility into what is already a difficult discussion. With respect to article length, again, if you see the discussion in the archives, we considered splits but decided against it. Happy to revisit that, in a new section, if you want to open that up. With respect to prominence ("shoving this way down in the article") there are many important issues discussed in the article and various editors have varying priorities... and the article is currently structured to have logical flow and to give appropriate weight to the various things discussed. It is not clear to me why you think this incident is more important than, say, the LibertyLink rice escape, or the emergence of roundup resistant weeds, or the potential contamination of the Mexican maize gene pool, or the role of IP rights and consolidation in the ag market. With respect to the content itself, as I wrote above, the product from the starlink GM crop was meant to be segregated from the human food supply, and the supply-chain did indeed lose control of starlink; this is similar to other incidents described in the Escape section. It is an interesting idea to move this in to the "health" section but I have a hard time seeing how you justify that. The CDC investigated the incident and was not able to determine any negative health effects from the escape. Btw, had you noticed that the topic was already covered when you added the new content? Thanks again for talking, and please do keep this civil and focused on the content. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't respond to your remarks about Arbcom. I don't agree that there is any censoring going on here... we welcome new content all the time. The issue with what you introduced is that it was duplicative. Happy to discuss on any board you wish to bring this to - there is nothing bad going on here and I would be very comfortable with any neutral party reviewing the history of this page or my edits in general. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I seem uncivil. I didn't know anything about the GMO controversy until the phone call a few days ago. I started editing new articles as I normally do and ran into very heated discussion about them. I came across the Starlink recall when looking into the controversy. It was the first recall and one article says it was the largest food recall ever. I found enough material to create Taco Bell GMO recall. I won't waste much time expanding it until it survives the inevitable AfD. AfDs are very helpful for expansion anyway because everyone has a new toy to play with.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for talking and for apologizing! I very much look forward to working with you, should you want to stick around. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

That's funny, if I said I got a phone call to edit this article, I think certain people would jump on that as evidence of some great conspiracy. Where as here you seem quite eager to tell us how you were canvassed privately IRL to "fix" this article or whatever. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

hi wolfie, Canoe first mentioned the phone call in the MaM ANI, in this dif - the call was about that article, apparently. Seemed to be from a non-Wikipedia-editor, so I don't think it was canvassing. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not asked to edit the article. The caller thought the article was unbalanced and asked me if COI edits were coming from Monsanto. The details are on my talk page where they belong.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Duplicate material and undue weight attached to it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

We can avoid duplication if it is moved to the health section. I am not sure what you mean by undue weight.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

May I ask one more time which section it belongs in? This is from our readers' point of view as well as sources, guidelines, and policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So, you refuse to continue the conversation here, then open a Dispute Resolution as you did here, and then you come back here and try to start talking again? Frustrating. In any case, I look forward to you responding to my response above (this dif) - the ball is still in your court. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

May I ask one more time which section it belongs in? This is from our readers' point of view as well as sources, guidelines, and policy. I have yet to see a valid rationale. The dispute board may help decide which section it belongs in if we can't agree here. I feel our readers would expect to find a major health recall in the health section. It is controversial, notable, and the FDA was involved. If their trucks or chimneys were re-called then that may be environmental. A food was recalled because the food was not considered are safe for consumption by people, not the environment. I did see mention of possible other health related material in the environment section. Perhaps we should visit those as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In this article, the "health" section is focused on whether eating food from GMOs causes any harm. This is a point that people are incredibly passionate over and needs clear space to be discussed. Canoe is trying to say that the Starlink recall is a health issue and there is zero evidence that it is a health issue. If anything it is regulatory issue. One thing Canoe is mis-understanding here is that the FDA had anything to do with it. Starlink had a Bt variant in it, and at that time, the EPA regulated food safety aspects of a GM crop that produced a pesticide (FDA would do food safety for any non-pesticide-producing modification). (see here, pages 57-60). The EPA was unable to determine if this particular Bt was allergenic or not, so they only approved it for animal feed use. They did not ever positively declare that it was "unfit" for humans to eat. They simply never approved it for that use. There is a huge difference. If we find cyanide in Tylenol bottles, that is a regulatory issue and is obvioiusly a health issue. If we find starlink in a taco shell, that is definitely a regulatory issue and it ~might~ be a health issue - the problem was that EPA wasn't certain enough that there wouldn't be. Well we got our experiment in a terrible way. Turned out that the CDC was unable to trace any adverse event to the taco shells - there was no health issue. So there are no legit grounds to include the Starlink escape under the "health section". Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The study by the FDA did find health issues with the shells and does state they could have caused health problems. I think there was one claim of health effects but it was settled without disclosure. The EPA study you mention differs from the FDA one. Both were critized for their prior knowledge of the contamination. We can't use their studies as a source in this case since they may be biased. If the recall would not have happened then we may have had far more health problems reported. Since the recall averted them then it did protect health. I still think we aren't getting anywhere here with it as we are just repeating our selves. If you will agree to include my link in health as well as yours in environment then I could consider further discussion. If not then I will await the drama boards and Arbcom decisions. Until then I consider the article unbalanced by the POV of those that keep removing a health issue from the health section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please provide the link to the "study by the FDA" related to approval or lack thereof for Starlink. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Link. It also mentions the PDA " raised the suspicions of EPA reviewers by exhibiting several other characteristics of allergens."--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I read it, and what I see, specifically about specific health effects, is: "The Centers for Disease Control investigated claims that 51 people had suffered allergic reactions shortly after eating corn products, but concluded that none of the reported symptoms could be attributed to the StarLink protein." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Link "The FDA received approximately 34 reports of adverse reaction to corn products which may contain StarLink."--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I read that one too. The full quote is: "The FDA received approximately 34 reports of adverse reaction to corn products which may contain StarLink. Of the 34 reports, 20 were very unlikely a result of an allergenic reaction. The U.S. Center investigated 7 people who experienced symptoms that are consistent with an allergenic reaction. The people showed no reaction to the Cry9C protein. This does not mean people could not develop an allergic reaction in the future." I'm seeing speculation by the author of the website that there could eventually be health effects, but what I'm seeing about what the FDA concluded is that there was no evidence of effects resulting from the corn. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Link. "STARLINK Corn and the Potential Risks Associated With Such Exposure,"--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The part directly related to health effects in humans is: "EPA did not authorize the use of STARLINK corn in human food because of unresolved questions about the allergenic potential of the Cry9C protein." Those are unresolved questions, resulting in caution, not findings of actual health effects. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Link. Center for Disease Control mentioned.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It summarizes the investigations that went into what I quoted from the second source, above. It says what studies were done, but it doesn't say anything about the findings of those studies. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Link This one is RS. Any study would be self-sourced and primary so we can use those anyway.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"US regulators approved StarLink for use in animal feed, but banned it from the human food chain amid concern that it could cause allergic rashes and diarrhoea." Those are "concerns", but in the context of the sources above, I think those are hypotheticals rather than experimental findings. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We can't use studies and experimental findings anyway because they are primary documents. The secondary source above we can use and it does state health concerns. I have yet to find any environmental concerns with StarLink.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Not one of those sources says that the FDA did any regulatory studies nor that it was involved at all in the approval or lack thereof. (the FDA never does regulatory studies in any case.. there is no way that you could have been right with respect to the question I asked about what you wrote.) In your first quote, you mischaracterize the source. It does not say that the "PDA" (I know you meant FDA ) "raised the suspicions of EPA reviewers by exhibiting several other characteristics of allergens." The full sentence and the one following it make it clear that the regulatory decision was 100% EPA: "In tests required for government approval to grow the crop, the Cry9C protein had been slower to break down under artificial digestibility tests than Cry1A(b) and had raised the suspicions of EPA reviewers by exhibiting several other characteristics of allergens. Because the issue of Cry9C allergenicity was unresolved, the EPA granted permission to grow the crop as long as it was not used for human food." Those tests are conducted by or on behalf of the sponsor of the application - in this case, Aventis. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I commented about each source one-by-one, but I ought to say what my overall take on them is. Nowhere do we have a statement in the sources that health effects in humans were attributed by scientists to the corn. There are reports of people telling the agencies that they, those people, had symptoms that they believed were caused by the corn, but the sources indicate in every case, that when the agencies followed through with examining the evidence, there were zero documented instances where humans got sick as a result of eating the corn. Sources talk about concerns that, maybe, health issues will show up later, but WP:CRYSTAL. At this point, we actually have a lot of sourcing to indicate that this does not belong in the health section. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

They don't need to get sick to create a health issue. The health issue was notable because it was the first GMO recall and largest recall of its type in history. The secondary sources call it a health issue because of the allergens contained in the corn. The studies said the allergens were in the corn. The government said don't feed the crappy corn to people. What part of health+GMO does not make sense here and what part of GMO+envirnment does? The reason no other health issues arose may be because sick people didn't know corn caused it, not enough unhealthy corn was eaten, etc. If the recall hadn't happened then we could have had a huge Lakeside Packers E. coli fiasco. I see that one isn't even mentioned in the article. In the Taco recall the contamination was caught earlier by a watchdog group because the government ignored the earlier reports it was happening. With Lakeside they waited for lots of people to get sick before recalling. I don't know which safeguards failed. Google Lakeside E. coli for details. I agree that 99.9999% of GMO is safe but when the bits that aren't cause very notable health GMO recalls our readers should be aware of those.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, you have tried to argue that it is health issue because the FDA was involved in testing, that the FDA called it "unfit", and that the FDA did the recall. None of those are true. No one was harmed, as the sources say, so that cannot be a reason. Please say clearly and concisely, what is your argument for saying this belongs under "health"? To be clear, the reason why the escape stuff has its current location in the article, is explained in part in the lead to that subsection: "Escape of GM crops", namely: "Related to gene flow, but separate, is the issue of GM crops escaping field tests, or GM crops that are approved for a given purpose, escaping into supply chains for other purposes. This is of great concern to farmers whose crop is exported to countries that have not approved harvests from GM crops." The primary harm from the escapes - be they in the field, or in the supply chain, has been economic damage to farmers and companies. You keep coming at this, Canoe, like we are trying to hide something, but as I mentioned at the start of this section, there is a ton of material here, and in organizing it, I and others tried to make a logical flow. Do you see at all, how the supply chain incidents fit with things like the recent discovery of GM wheat in Washington? There was at one point a section on "Food supply chain purity" or something like that, and if I remember right the supply chain content was there and was later consolidated with the field escapes, because they make sense together and are helpful for readers to see together. Really there is no bad intent here, it is just a matter of trying to organize things well. I would be open to re-instating the supply chain section.... but then we would lose the overview that the reader gets in the current "escape" section. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to be answering my concerns about the readers so I will repeat them:

They don't need to get sick to create a health issue. The health issue was notable because it was the first GMO recall and largest recall of its type in history. The secondary sources call it a health issue because of the allergens contained in the corn. The studies said the allergens were in the corn. The government said don't feed the crappy corn to people. What part of health+GMO does not make sense here and what part of GMO+envirnment does? The reason no other health issues arose may be because sick people didn't know corn caused it, not enough unhealthy corn was eaten, etc. If the recall hadn't happened then we could have had a huge Lakeside Packers E. coli fiasco. I see that one isn't even mentioned in the article. In the Taco recall the contamination was caught earlier by a watchdog group because the government ignored the earlier reports it was happening. With Lakeside they waited for lots of people to get sick before recalling. I don't know which safeguards failed. Google Lakeside E. coli for details. I agree that 99.9999% of GMO is safe but when the bits that aren't cause very notable health GMO recalls our readers should be aware of those.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

wow you actually just copy-pasted your response. wow. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you actually didn't respond reasonably to it the second time either.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. I am copying what you wrote, and responding to each part.Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: "They don't need to get sick to create a health issue."Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Response: If no one got sick, what is the health issue?Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If the recall hadn't have happened there was a risk of people getting sick.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: "The health issue was notable because it was the first GMO recall and largest recall of its type in history."

Response: No one is disputing that the event is notable. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No, but you are disputing whether it was notable due to health or the environment.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: "The secondary sources call it a health issue because of the allergens contained in the corn. The studies said the allergens were in the corn. "Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Response: This is not true. The issue was a concern that the Bt protein ~might~ be allergenic because of its slow breakdown. This is probably our key point of difference.. will say more on this in a bit. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: "The government said don't feed the crappy corn to people."Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Response: A very rough paraphrase... but yes, EPA's decision was to not approve Starlink for human consumption because of uncertainties about allergenic response to Bt.Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I read those as health concerns, and not environmental ones. Wrong section again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: What part of health+GMO does not make sense here and what part of GMO+envirnment does?

Response: My sense is that this is a rhetorical question.... I have been trying to explain why it doesn't belong under "health" and why it is, where it is.

Canoe:The reason no other health issues arose may be because sick people didn't know corn caused it, not enough unhealthy corn was eaten, etc. If the recall hadn't happened then we could have had a huge...

Response: This appears to be speculation by you.... WP:CRYSTAL Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Same speculation as any recall. If we recall it then we can guarantee no sickness, not ~might~ get sick if we don't recall.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: ...Lakeside Packers E. coli fiasco. I see that one isn't even mentioned in the article. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Response: The Lakeside Packers article is pretty sketchy, but what it talks about is a settlement over a cow with mad cow disease which is a prion disease and has nothing to do with bacteria; it has nothing to do with genetic modification either, so I don't know why it would be mentioned in this article. Please explain. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: In the Taco recall the contamination was caught earlier by a watchdog group because the government ignored the earlier reports it was happening.

Response: yep this is true. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: With Lakeside they waited for lots of people to get sick before recalling. I don't know which safeguards failed. Google Lakeside E. coli for details.

Response: OK, I googled as you suggested and found a bunch of things about lakes. I googled "Lakeside meat E. coli" and found this which says: "On September 16, 2012 XL Foods Inc. (Edmonton, AB) recalled ground beef products supplied to distributors, retailers and food service establishments across Canada, due to possible contamination with E. coli O157:H7. Some of the meat was exported to the USA. According to a report from US Foods (a food service distributor based in the USA), the recall was initiated after USDA detected E. coli O157:H7 in a sample of the meat taken at as the shipment entered the US from Canada." So this was a (sadly) run of the mill E Coli contamination incident, which was caught by the USDA... how is this relevant to our discussion? Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong recall. 18 confirmed sick when XL Foods owned Lakeside. September, 2012.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

So, neither the mad cow nor the e coli meat recalls relevant to this discussion, right? Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe: I agree that 99.9999% of GMO is safe but when the bits that aren't cause very notable health GMO recalls our readers should be aware of those.Jytdog (talk)

Response: Happy that you generally agree on the safety of currently marketed food from GMOs! Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. But when the wrong bits get in the food chain then it becomes a health controversy, not an environmental one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, so if I am getting you right at this point, in your comments above, you have argued that there actually was an allergen in Starlink.. and so of course the Starlink recall was a health issue. This would be similar to saying "there was cyanide found in Tylenol, so there was a health recall." I follow that logic. However, as I pointed out above, the issue was that there was concern that the Bt used in that corn, Cry9C, ~might~ be allergenic and so they did not approve Starlink for human consumption. The exact words of the EPA: "After reviewing the available data, EPA was unable to determine whether the Cry9C protein was a potential human allergen. All other information indicated that Cry9C would not pose any other types of risks to human health or the environment. Accordingly, in 1998, EPA registered StarLink™ for commercial use, provided that all grain derived from StarLink™ corn was directed to domestic animal feed or to industrial uses (e.g., biofuels)." (source) Do you see the difference between "might be an allergen" and "is an allergen"? Before we can make arguments, we need to agree on the facts. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Key phrase is ...any other types of risks to human health.... I read that as the allergens being the only risk and that risk being human health. Do you see any environmental risks listed? If not then it is not an environmental controversy. So why is it in the environmental controversy section? What is the controversy about this corn with the environment? Now I will go answer some of your other questions from your sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you please respond to my question? We have to agree on facts before we can move agreeing about judging or classifying what happened. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is or might be, nor does my opinion matter. We should go with what secondary sources say. There are probably primary sources that say both so it is moot what I agree to. 'Might be' is still enough to qualify as a health risk but if you want me to agree to that then I will; just to keep the discussion moving forward. I don't wish to dig up sources that say that it is just to argue a moot point.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Facts matter. We are agreed, then, that Cry9C might be an allergen. What follows, is that there might be a health risk. Not that there is is a health risk. Example: there is a health risk from eating certain raw beans, as they contain Phytohaemagglutinin which is destroyed by cooking. If you eat one or two raw kidney beans you are unlikely to be come sick, but if you each a bunch, you are very likely to get sick or even die. If you cook them, you completely mitigate the risk. There is a big difference between something that is a health risk and something that might be. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That is like claiming that E. Coli is healthy as long as you cook your recalled beef. Are you saying that wasn't a health issue?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not what I am saying. I don't see how you get there from what I wrote. I am trying to work with you, step by step here and I feel like you keep jumping to the end. I'd like to suggest that we put this conversation on pause, and consider together the "supply chain" section header I mentioned below. Let's see if we can agree on a third way. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I got there from your bean analogy. With the corn it is the same thing. If the recall did not happen then health was at risk. Since it did happen then health damage was limited to one case that was inconclusive. I don't see how supply chains can be controversial so they shouldn't belong as a stand alone section in an article on controversy. We could include one each in environment and health if you wish as sub-sections.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

I am at a loss here. You have ignored pretty much everything I have written. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I consider that a bad faith remark. I have not ignored any of it. I thought I responded well to it. Could you please clarify?--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, here are unanswered questions: Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

1) " With respect to prominence ("shoving this way down in the article") there are many important issues discussed in the article and various editors have varying priorities... and the article is currently structured to have logical flow and to give appropriate weight to the various things discussed. It is not clear to me why you think this incident is more important than, say, the LibertyLink rice escape, or the emergence of roundup resistant weeds, or the potential contamination of the Mexican maize gene pool, or the role of IP rights and consolidation in the ag market." (14:43, 3 August 2013) Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with the prominence or amount of material. I disagree with the section it is in. The others you mentioned above may need moving to the health section as well if they were controversial in regards to health. I haven't looked at the sources yet.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what is frustrating. You complained that the content was "It was a big issue and to stuff it way down in the article seems like it is being swept under the rug." That is a question of prominence, to which I directly responded. Now you are shifting ground and saying your complaint is only about what section it is in. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of prominence. It is a matter of readers finding it where it should be. When I look in the film section of an actor I don't expect to find a TV show. Those are in the TV section. I still feel that most readers wouldn't look in the whole article if they just wanted to research the health controversies. I never thought to look in environmental controversies, why should they?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

2) "Btw, had you noticed that the topic was already covered when you added the new content?" (14:43, 3 August 2013) Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked for it in the health section where our readers would expect to find it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, so you did not realize it was already covered. I am having a hard time with you projecting your failure to find it onto all readers. I told you that the article underwent a pretty dramatic condensation after a long discussion on Talk about whether to split this into subarticles or try to edit it down. We went for the latter and User:Aircorn did most of it in late November to early December of last year in this set of difs. You can see there, that formerly there was a section called "Purity of Foodchain" which was completely cut out. Nobody said anything. In May, I noticed it was gone and put the section back in this set of difs. And it has been stable there since May - you are the first to complain about its location. I hear you that you think it should be in another place, but as I said, I am not sure on what basis we can project your desire to see it there, to all readers. As I wrote (which you still have not responded to), I think there is benefit to readers in seeing all the ways that GMOs can get into the food supply unintentionally. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I was a health controversy about a GMO food. It should go in the health section of GMO food controversies. When readers want to read health controversies about GMO food then that is the section they should find it in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

3) In any case, I look forward to you responding to my response above (this dif) - the ball is still in your court. (19:57, 7 August 2013) Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of that you have asked again here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

4) You continually claimed that FDA was involved, from actually testing the taco shells to doing the recall. You used that as an argument that this is a "health" issue. I showed you that it was EPA, not FDA. You have not acknowledged that that FDA was not involved at all. (several places) Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The source says the FDA was involved, so I go with sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Again this is frustrating. You said a) the FDA did testing; b) the FDA did the recall; and c) that the FDA said Starlink was unfit. None of those were true. The only thing the sources you brought say, is that some reports of adverse reactions were reported to the FDA (this source says that) and they did nothing except pass that on to the CDC for investigation, and that the FDA got involved temporarily by issuing testing guidelines, which your source shows them withdrawing after the EPA provided a definitive one. Neither the Colordo State source nor The Guardian report mentions the FDA. The FDA was about as uninvolved as it could be. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Taco Bell said "We are fully cooperating with the FDA." or words to that effect. They did the recall and did not mention any other agencies involved. We need to go with what the sources say. The degree of involvement will be hard to source. Did the FDA have 100 men at each Taco Bell or none? How do you quantify a degree of involvement without a comparison of all sorts of data. Inspectors on the ground, document reading/writing, or cost of investigation, etc. --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

5) I showed that you took a quote out of context, making the FDA its subject (you actually wrote "PDA") and you did not acknowledge the mistake (I have explicitly acknowledged some mistake I made while we are talking). Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledged now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

6) You ignored everything I wrote on 01:31, 8 August 2013, and simply recopied your text above. I wrote things there about how the content got where it is, and offered another suggestion for where to put this. You didn't respond to that at all, saying something like "I see how that happened, I see how it makes sense for the reader to put mixing in the field together with mixing in the supply chain, but I still think this escape needs to be in health". You just ignored it. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources refer to it as a health issue. We go with sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Argh. You are still not dealing with anything I wrote there. I provided more explanation in 2) above. But it seems kind of pointless. I am out of time for today. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You provided an explanation that doesn't follow what the sources say.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

7) You brought up this Lakeside thing and I didn't see how it fit with anything GM related and you said nothing. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither did your bean analogy. It was just another analogy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There is other stuff, but overall what is going on here, is that I respond to you and you just ignore what I write and bring up new arguments. This is not a conversation, as you are not responding to me. I want to work toward consensus but you seem unwilling to compromise. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources say it was a health related. It should go in the health section. We go with sources. You keep insisting it doesn't belong there. None of the sources use the term 'escape'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, I know for a fact that I explained very clearly in this discussion section that the sources go against calling it "health". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, you have about worn me about. Let me step back. You have been basically repeating your claim that "the recall is a health issue" (which I heard the first time!) and shifting your arguments for the position as I have addressed the the arguments you have brought for your claim. I have offered a compromise and you have not acknowledged it. much less responded to it. It appears that you are simply driving toward the article being exactly as you want it to be, even though there are three of us saying we don't see it the same way. Are you willing to compromise? Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

3:1 may be fine for your version of the article but the only problem is the sources have it as a health issue. We don't count votes here. We count sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Health: Action by Kraft is the first involving genetically altered food. The grain contains a pest repellent." My bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• "All other information indicated that Cry9C would not pose any other types of risks to human health or the environment." My bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• "7. Has Health Canada put in place an independent and scientific monitoring of the short and long term human health effects of the Cry9C protein contained in the StarLink corn which illegally entered to the Canadian food chain? If yes, what is the dollars amount spent on this by Health Canada and how many person-day are allocated on these programs and have been spent or will be spent? If not, are there any plan to do so, when and how much resources will be spent?" My bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• "While the health effects of StarLink are still unsettled, many worry that the government remains unprepared to deal with unexpected health problems from genetically engineered crops, especially those now being field-tested to mass-produce medicines, vaccines or industrial chemicals." My bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• StarLink health study by the CDC.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• "This was important for legal compliance, public health, and economic reasons.. My bold and no mention of environment.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

I've read all of the discussion above, and it seems to me that the center of the disagreement is where Canoe says that "They don't need to get sick to create a health issue." Canoe is arguing that it is a health issue because there had been a potential for a health issue, whereas other editors, including me, believe that there is a difference between a "health issue" and a "potential health issue". It's true that the sources indicate that the Cry9C protein is a potential allergen, but the sources also indicate that, in 100% of the people examined, there were either no symptoms of allergy, or the people who had allergic reactions showed negative allergy tests to Cry9C, which means that they were allergic to something other than the corn. I think that there is a useful guideline at WP:MEDASSESS, particularly the paragraph talking about "speculative proposals". What I take from it is that Wikipedia does not present the possibility of a speculative health concern as though it were an actual health concern. The Taco Bell incident is unambiguously an incident in which a GMO crop "escaped" in the sense of winding up in a place in the food supply where it should not have been, but all the sources that we have indicate that it did not result in any real health effects in humans. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the way Wikipedia should be written for our readers. If the sources include it as a 'health related controversy' then so should we. In a GMO definitions article it may be included in 'escape'. In an article about the public, corporate, science, and government controversies this is definitively a health related controversy. The public uproar over the incident, the government with its prior knowledge seeming not to act, corporations not monitoring/testing in regards to manufacturing/sales, and science not ensuring that somebody informed the corn farmers/elevator operators how to handle their creations and prevent them from escaping into the food chain where they would become a health concern. The escape was the cause of the recall and all the controversies were the effect. I believe GMO is fine but if the previous issues are not dealt with it will remain controversial to most others.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I hear what you are saying, but I think that this issue also gets back to what I just said on your user talk page. When it's a "controversy", we have to think carefully about something being "related". It's true that this is a controversy. It's true that the sources we have been discussing here can be described, in part, as being "related to" health. But, in the end, the sources end up concluding that there was not a health problem for anybody. So what we are left with is reliable sourcing that some people have thought that there were health problems, and there was a controversy about it, and the most reliable science sources ended up concluding that the health problems did not actually happen. Therefore, when some people first thought that there had been health problems, that turned out to be sort of like the "rumor-of-the-day", but we have to give our coverage to the mainstream, reliable, scholarly analysis. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Above, I explained why the Starlink incident content came to be located where it is in the article. I also suggested another place we could put it. (two topics, which I will copy and split out here for separate commenting):Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• To be clear, the reason why the escape stuff has its current location in the article, is explained in part in the lead to that subsection: "Escape of GM crops", namely: "Related to gene flow, but separate, is the issue of GM crops escaping field tests, or GM crops that are approved for a given purpose, escaping into supply chains for other purposes. This is of great concern to farmers whose crop is exported to countries that have not approved harvests from GM crops." The primary harm from the escapes - be they in the field, or in the supply chain, has been economic damage to farmers and companies.... Do you see at all, how the supply chain incidents fit with things like the recent discovery of GM wheat in Washington?Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• There was at one point a section on "Food supply chain purity" or something like that, and if I remember right the supply chain content was there and was later consolidated with the field escapes, because they make sense together and are helpful for readers to see together (these are the two ways that GM crop can get intermixed with conventional - in the field, and post-harvest in the supply chain). Really there is no bad intent here, it is just a matter of trying to organize things well. I would be open to re-instating the supply chain section....Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The main problem with that is any food supply chain material would need to go in the health section. This is an article about controversies and that would be a health controversy. It is also prescriptive and not descriptive. See Dictionary#Prescriptive_vs._descriptive. Wikipedia should be descriptive in keeping with MOS:HEAD which says we should use WP:COMMONNAME (description). This is about what our readers should expect with section titles and material in them. Editors may believe prescriptive names like 'escape' are more correct but the common name would be something like 'contamination'. Wikipedia normally goes with the secondary source description and not the primary source prescription. We could discuss re-formatting the article but it will probably be easier to just correct the section headings. I haven't looked into whether secondary sources use escape or something like contamination. We may end up calling it either Escape (contamination), Contamination (escape), Escape contamination, or Escape and contamination. Wikipedia:RD/L may help decide the section title as well as with which is most descriptive. With the Taco Bell recall all the secondary sources use 'health' and 'contanimation' not 'environment' and 'escape'. To our readers 'environment' refers to things like GHG or hybrid and 'escape' is a Steve McQueen or Sean Connery movie depending on their age. We should be prescribing our views onto them but describing their world to them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Since it is now mentioned in both sections can we remove the POV tag. AIRcorn (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Aircorn. In case anyone didn't notice, I added it to the Allergens section, in a manner that accurately reflects the source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't controversial for being allergenic. It was controversial for the way it was handled. From the manufacturer right up to the misleading statements after the fact by the government and others. I think one source says it was a cause of the EU laws later. It could probably go in the lead of the health section but actually belongs in the lead of the whole article. The article lead is too full now, but if I trim all the fluff or move it I will probably just be reverted again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Controversial is thrown around too easily by the media. A recall is a good thing. It means someone has accepted a mistake has happened and taken responsibility for it. Even better no one got harmed and no one was likely to be harmed. This is minor controversy in regards to GMO's. Pusztai is probably the biggest, followed by Séralini. The monarch butterfly and escape of genes into Maize populations in Mexico are also much bigger than this. It does not belong in the lead and probably gets a better mention now than it deserves. AIRcorn (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Controversial may be 'thrown around too easily by the media', but when it is we provide that material to our readers. Most of the 'spin' in this article is not even controversial. I will remove some material that is not sourced as controversial and we will see if my edit is reverted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Genetic modification can also be used to remove allergens from foods, potentially reducing the risk of food allergies. A hypo-allergenic strain of soybean was tested in 2003 and shown to lack the major allergen that is found in the beans. A similar approach has been tried in ryegrass, which produces pollen that is a major cause of hay fever: here a fertile GM grass was produced that lacked the main pollen allergen, demonstrating that the production of hypoallergenic grass is also possible. Is not controversial. Why was it called edit warring when I removed it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's wrap up

Spent a lot of time thinking about this today. I think there is a reasonable argument to include the Starlink recall under the allergenicity section of the Health section, since it was concern about possible allergenicity that led to the EPA not approving Starlink for food use, and the unapproved appearance in the food supply led the companies to recall it. So I worked up a rigorous text on that with good sources and I just added it. I cut down the discussion under Escape since it was redundant. To be honest, my emotional reaction to Canoe's... mm aggression, in discussions prevented me from thinking through this clearly. I do think it makes sense here. Canoe. sugar gets you farther, faster, than vinegar. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Have to disagree with the way it is presented. WP:Due applies and this controversy deserves no more space than Pusztai or the Monarch Butterfly. They each get a paragraph so I have reduced it accordingly. I also don't think it deserves its own heading and with all the sub headings it is hard to differentiate at that level. We could expand some of the other controversies, but that would go against the consensus to trim the article reached previously. Also there is a sub article which can contain most of the details, I am going to copy what I removed there now. AIRcorn (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with the trims and de-subsectioning. thanks. i am copying it to the genetically modified maize article too, which also has a section on this and may be more appropriate for the scientific-y stuff.Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Added everything else to Taco Bell GMO Recall, hopefully it is attributed sufficiently. AIRcorn (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

References

References

What does "Tag Team deletion" mean?

It is obviously something to do with edit warring, and something I haven't come across before. I'm such a newbie. --Roxy the dog (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tag team--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Very good of you, thank you. -- now can I ask that jytdog and yourself deal with this amicably? that would be nice too.--Roxy the dog (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Sourced an notable material should not be tag team removed without discussion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that articles like this one get a lot of reverts back and forth. If people don't agree in article-space then we should spend more time discussing problems on the talkpage. Would it be helpful if this article (and maybe some related ones) had a 1RR restriction? bobrayner (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of my discussion questions go unanswered with the sourced and notable material tag-team removed from the articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You still have not replied to where I explained how the Starlink issue came to be where it is, what the rationale for that is, and offered a compromise. Not a peep. You seem to have no interest in compromising or really talking. You just keep repeating the same claims over and over, all of which have been responded to at one point or another. Jytdog (talk)

You have still not found a source that claims it was an environmental recall. All the sources say it was a health recall. We go with sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with that interpretation of recent edits, but nonetheless it still underlines the revert problem. Would it be helpful if this article (and maybe some related ones) had a 1RR restriction? bobrayner (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

<redacted>--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Those are pretty drastic claims. If you could provide diffs to support them, I'll happily start a case over at arbcom. If you don't have evidence, it might be a good idea to retract those claims. bobrayner (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been discussed at numerous boards. Not much for results though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, why are you not following WP:BRD and instead are edit warring? Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is a health recall in the environmental section when all of the sources say it was a health issue and none state environmental? Why is notable sourced material removed without discussion? Why does an article about controversies contain so much fluff that is not controversial and biased to one side of the controversy? Why don't you answer my questions before I answer anymore of yours?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Bob that there seems to be too much reverting. About the tag-team thing, typically the "tag-team" phrase is used to denote editors who are intentionally acting together, often in order to get one editor with whom they disagree blocked for 3RR. It's very important to make a distinction between that, and what I suspect is really the case here: multiple editors in agreement, because that's what the consensus is, and one single editor who disagrees with that consensus. And I'll note that the "health" issue, and the sourcing for it, have indeed been discussed in great detail, with it becoming very clear that what the sources say is that no health effects were found. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The recall was still a health recall though as the sources say. None of them claim it was an environmental recall. This makes it a controversial health recall. The tag team is still the same few editors that revert most of my edits without answering many of my questions. Therefore no discussion and simply Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be confused as to what WP:TAGTEAM is. Tag team is collaboration by a minority to circumvent consensus. You are confusing editor consensus, with a single dissenter (you), as WP:TAGTEAM. There is no evidence of collaboration here. No evidence that those you are constantly accusing are attempting to circumvent consensus. To the contrary, there is evidence that those you keep accusing as WP:TAGTEAM are the consensus. The constant accusations you consistently keep throwing is a very poor display of WP:AGF. You should either bring these accusations to the proper dispute venue or avoid making them. BlackHades (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The constant reverts without proper discussion and providing RS are bad faith. I think you are confused about the definition of tag team.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No you are confused. You keep referring to consensus based editing as WP:TAGTEAM. You are namely doing this:

"Consequently, some editors that are failing to gain consensus for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every editor that opposes them of being part of a "tag team"."

It would be highly advisable to stop doing this. BlackHades (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be the POV of a few editors and not what the sources state.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Content about Taco Bell recall in the regulatory section?

Hey all

There has been a slow motion edit war over whether the Starlink/Taco Bell Recall incident should be mentioned in the "Objectivety of Regulatory Bodies" subsection of the Regulatory section. Last version is here. It was first added on August 21; it was deleted soon thereafter, and has been added back and deleted 4 more times since then, and is currently deleted. Canoe added it originally and has been the sole un-deleter; 3 editors have deleted it (me twice) and while the content was present, two editors other than Canoe worked on improving the content. Seems about time we discussed this, yes? I will leave it to Canoe to open the discussion as to why it should be here, as per WP:BRD. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it should remain in the article while we discuss it. My removals of other material are added back without discussion. This should be the same case. Add the material back while we discuss it otherwise it is a bad faith position taken by editors that I feel wish to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles using Wikipedia:Tag team.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:CONSENSUS the version prior to the one that caused the dispute would be the one that stands during discussion. Which means your material should stay removed while it's being discussed. It also means your removals of other material should be restored while it's being discussed. BlackHades (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who worked on improving how the content was worded, and I thought that it needed those improvements. However, I would not have an objection to putting it back. I'm not really convinced that it was "spamming" up the page, and it does seem to me to include criticism of groups, where such criticisms belong on this page. Let me suggest putting something like it back, but in a significantly shorter form. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want actual controversies in a shorter form but all the non-controversial promotional fluff that I remove, which is then tag team replaced, to remain in longer form?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

After reading that, I feel like saying I changed my mind and we can just leave it out. (You'll get farther, believe me, if you step back from framing things in adversarial terms, also like the ownership thing above.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"We can just leave it out." That is what has been happening and caused by tag team edits by wp:owners. If you are bowing out of the discussion then I will give the others a chance to answer my questions before I add it back. If it is reverted without discussion then it may escalate back to the drama boards and eventually ArbCom.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I never said I was bowing out. I was giving you friendly advice about how not to find yourself in an escalated situation with "we". And I'll say it again: I think it might be a good compromise to put the deleted paragraph back, but to shorten it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I am just fed up with this tag team reversion of material by those that own the article without responding to my questions. Feel free to add it back in its entirety and then we can discuss shortening it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is an overview of all the GM controversies. We have sub articles for some of the more important individual ones like Seralini and Pusztai and also one now for the Taco Bell GMO recall. This article links to those articles, which should contain more in depth information. Therefore we don't need to include minor details in this article. As to the edit itself it introduces a quote to this article that has little relevance to a section on regulatory objectivity (a member of an antiGM group saying that the EPA should be embarrassed is minor in the scheme of things), especially aghainst the Micheal Taylor concerns. It belongs in the Taco Bell article, but not in this one. I know it has been mentioned before, but I suggest you prepare an RFC if you think editors are owning this article and preventing you from adding content. AIRcorn (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It was the first GMO recall in history and the largest food recall at the time. These are not "minor details". This material should be included.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No one is, or to my knowledge has, said not to mention it. We currently have a paragraph that says:

"In 2000, Aventis StarLink corn, which had been approved only as animal feed due to concerns about possible allergic reactions in humans, was found contaminating corn products in U.S. supermarkets and restaurants. This corn became the subject of the widely publicized Taco Bell GMO recall, when Taco Bell taco shells were found to contain the corn, resulting in sales of StarLink seed being discontinued. The registration for the Starlink varieties was voluntarily withdrawn by Aventis in October 2000. Aid sent by the UN and the US to Central African nations was also found to be contaminated with StarLink corn and the aid was rejected. The US corn supply has been monitored for Starlink Bt proteins since 2001 and no positive samples have been found since 2004. In response, GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace International set up the GM Contamination Register in 2005."

If you can reliably source that it is the first GMO recall (have there been others?) and largest food one at the time then that can be easily added to this paragraph. This dispute is over how to present the information and sprinkling it throughout the article (it is also now mentioned under health) is not the way to do it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong! Tag team wp:own is not the way to do it. The sources are in the recall article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think is wrong. If the sources are there then what is the issue with moving them here. AIRcorn (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not being 'sprinkled throughout' the article. The recall had various aspects of the controversies. Regulatory and corporate deception, a public health uproar not because of the possible allergens but because an unfit food was known to be consumed by the public, and it being the first GMO recall as well as some sources stating it was the largest at the time. If you don't wish it 'sprinkled' throughout then it could just have its own section in health since the main concern was health.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Religion section

This little discussion between User:Canoe1967 and User:TippyGoomba (here and here that led to Tippy removing the religion section. Which was called to my attention by User:Aircorn's comment that he had missed this.

There was a discussion about expanding this a while back. And I can't find it now, but at one point there was a Feedback on the article asking for more detail on religous views. We should keep it. Let's discuss.... Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

<redacted after reading the above> --Canoe1967 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (edit note - restored this which Canoe completely deleted - need to leave actual record, for the record. added strikethrough Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)) (edit note - I don't want to edit war over this further. "The above" was written at 01:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC). Canoe made an initial, dismissive remark after reading the above at 01:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC). As of the date of this note, an administrator is reviewing things, and Canoe went back and deleted his remark; i went back and undeleted it, and added a strikethrough. Canoe reverted. I reverted once one more with an edit note saying "not good to scrub the record like this. you said what you said. don't make those reviewing this have to do more work by digging into article history." Canoe reverted, and left the comment above here in Talk, which is misleading, since the redacted remark was originally written "after reading the above". The dif in which Canoe made the comment is here. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC))

That above discussion seems to indicate that Hebrews, Islam, and Rastafarians are against GMO. If so then why did the removed religious section not reflect this. It stated the opposite that no religions had issues.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

<redacted as corrected above> --Canoe1967 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think the best solution would be to merge it into public perception. Religous views probably deserve a small mention and that is the best place I can think to put it. AIRcorn (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a reasonable suggestion. Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I will have a look later today and see what I come up with. AIRcorn (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• <redacted as corrected above>User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)