Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Moving IP section into regulatory section

Today Canoe moved the IP section into the regulatory section. I reverted this as this doesn't make sense to me. Canoe reverted my reversion and did not open a Talk section. So I am. Canoe would you please explain why this makes sense? ThanksJytdog (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"Corporations say that they need product control in order to prevent seed piracy,...." from the IP section, thus it is regulatory.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is an unclear division between the Economics and Regulation sections of the page. For example, there is a section header about regulation in Europe in the Economics section. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the rationale provided by Canoe. Patents are not part of the regulatory system. In the US, the USPTO is part of the Department of Commerce; wholly separate from the EPA and FDA. They have nothing to do with one another. You can have a patent on X and never get X approved for marketing. IP belongs in the economics section, because patents have to do with commerce and the marketplace.Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I went back and re-read it, and I think it would be best to move it back to the Economics section. It clearly is relevant to economics. I'd rather have the Regulation section focus on laws and regulatory bodies more narrowly, and have the Economics section be more broadly drawn. IP doesn't really have that much to do with regulations about whether GM organisms are allowed into food or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

IP has nothing to do with governmental regulations about how GM organisms may or may not be used. This goes to WP:COMPETENCE.Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I already moved it into the Economics section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

reorganization

The unilateral reorganization of this article without discussion is not a good thing. Again, at the end of my rope here.Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I made an edit just before your comment here, so I'm not sure if you were directing that at me, but if I made any mistakes, I'm happy to discuss them and fix them. Thanks for not edit warring about it. Please don't feel unhappy about any of this. Everything can be discussed and corrected. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverting a bold edit and asking for discussion is not edit warring. I don't edit war. I have never been blocked for it and don't intend ever to get into that trouble. The issue is what User:Canoe1967 has done to the article today. No discussion. Calls standard BRD procedure "edit warring". End of my rope. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read again what I said. I said that you did not edit war, and thanked you for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, it is not your article and I wish you would stop inferring that it is. Your opinion is merely that. If you don't like changes then please discuss them instead of just reverting before discussion. That is not a good faith method.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not my article. It is Wikipedia's article, and we work collaboratively. We talk about things. That is the purpose of BRD. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a crock of BS Jytdog. You revert my edits with BRD as an excuse and then refuse to answer my questions in discussion. That is not good faith editing. You should leave my edits alone in the future and discuss what is wrong with them instead of selfishly reverting with no adequate responses in discussions--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please drop it, both of you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at the edits I made subsequently. You will see that I implemented some of the things that you had suggested in earlier talk. I also fixed some other things that I consider to have been problems created by the earlier reorganization edits, but mostly by trying to find "third ways" instead of reverting. If there is still anything that you think is misplaced, I'm happy to discuss and correct it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

My issue is as much about process -- User:Canoe1967's inability to talk through an issue and reach a compromise - as substance. Thank you for mediating in any case. Looking at the aftermath, apparently Canoe decided today to eliminate the "other" section and moved its contents elsewhere in the article.Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "biological process" is now a major section -- this was a minor bit of content about how some people object to scientists and companies "playing god" with nature. It is not worth a section on its own. Have thought about deleting it but it is something you hear people talk about with respect to the controversy.Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional note - if we are all OK with getting rid of the "other" section, the 'biological process' bit could go into the Public Perception section, as we did with the religion bit. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

fixed this. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• And somehow the 'horizontal gene flow from plants to animals' got into the "biological process" section and is no longer in the health section, where it was and where it belongs (it is one of health concerns people worry about). Has nothing to do with the "playing god" objection per se. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

fixed this. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• the "industrial ag" section is now inside "economics" - one objection to the use of GM crops is that GM corps are wired into - and propagate - industrial ag (monoculture, use of chemicals, etc)... The "industrial ag" objection is a much broader issue than economic. Which is why it was in "other". But it is OK where it is now. Not optimal to me, but it is OK.Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• "litigation in the US" section needed a better home than "other". But it is bizarre next to the recaps of other countries' issues, as though this is all there is to say over about the US. Would probably be best under the regulation section as the litigation mentioned there is about regulation. We could just delete it too but it was part of the content that others had added so I have tried to retain it - it matters to somebody. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

fixed this. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• "European trade disputes" are economic. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

fixed this - actually consolidated with US litigation over regulation in new subsection "litigation and disputes over regulation". Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• enough for now.Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of those things are my fault, not Canoe's. I really wasn't sure what to make of the Biological processes, and I was the one who put the horizontal flow into it. I'd be fine with moving horizontal flow back, and figuring out a way to merge the rest of the biological processes part into other sections. It seems to me that health and environment are biological processes too. There is no "other" section any more. The sections that used to be in "other" got moved all over the place, and it made sense to me to group regional topics together. I don't object to finding better homes for the US and EU sections, but I'm not sure where that would leave Africa and India. I would oppose re-creating an "other" section, because it's too vaguely defined. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Made an effort to address this... Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the edits that you, and subsequently, Aircorn made about the section titles and placement. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead sentence

There has been some back-and-forth about the lead sentence. I have a preference for this version: [1], rather than this: [2]. Here's why:

1. I don't think that there has ever been a need for citations for the phrase "relative advantages" in the first place. As I already tried to explain in the discussion thread above, the placement of a cite-needed tag there was just a WP:POINTy complaint about other disagreements about the page. There's no need for cites right there, because the whole rest of the page goes into the source material. The sentence is not claiming that there are advantages, but rather summarizing how there is a debate about whether or not there are advantages.
2. It looks strange to have inline citations for the advantages, but not for the disadvantages. Are we going to now add cites for the disadvantages too? And when we do, are we going to have a pissing match over which one has more or better citations?
3. Every controversy is, in some way, about whether there are advantages or disadvantages to something, so the language about advantages and disadvantages is not particularly informative. However, the language fails to spell out (dis)advantages over what? In contrast, the now-reverted language does spell out that we are comparing GM crops with conventional crops.

I think that it was a mistake to put back the "advantages and disadvantages" language with sources, just to show that the sources do indeed exist. I think we are better off with the other language. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The main problem is that the sources don't state the advantages are controversial. To include them in the scope of a controversy article is not correct. This has created an article scope that includes Monsanto and GMO spam about all the good points of GMO that are not controversies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I might not put it in exactly those words, but I largely agree with you about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I put sources because there was a citation needed piece there, and, really, there's no actual dispute except by one person that there are advantages so it shouldn't have really needed sources in the first place. I prefer that version because your version suggests that the controversy is about the crops and not the food. With that said, if it means we need to source disadvantages too, so be it. I find the necessity for the sources to talk about an apparent controversy to be without merit, either way, as the question is not whether the claims are controversial, but whether the food is controversial. As there are pros and cons, it's clear it is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue of crops/food is a valid one, and I'd be happy to fix it through editing of the wording, instead of reverting back to a flawed version. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on scope - Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Article_scope - specifically to allow Canoe's concerns about the scope of the article to be discussed, which seemed a more productive route than dealing with it piecemeal in response to Canoe deleting material from the article, as had been happening before. I do not understand why Canoe went ahead and edited the definition of the scope in the lead while the discussion is still in process, where I at least am still waiting for Canoe to provide a new proposal for scope, instead of simply attacking tagging the current one. This section you created, Trypofish, really should be in the Scope section above.Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC) (amending to remove negative connotations, which I did not intend Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC))

I don't see this discussion as being about the scope. At all. It's about the wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Trypto, Canoe had been somewhat systematically going through the article and removing anything related to "advantages" and in explanations, would call such text "spam" and the like, and would write things like "that is not controversial"... with a sense that an article about "controversies" should only talk about negatives... his tags etc by the word 'advantages' in the lead paragraph are completely in line with that -- it is part of the discussion about the scope of the article. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's taking all my self control not to say something incivil to you right now. Let it go. I've offered alternative wording below. It makes all that stuff about advantages etc. go away. This isn't about who wins. It's about what the best content is for the page. Take a look at the wording I suggest below, and tell me how to improve it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping your cool! I am not trying to be a dick and I am not trying to "win". As far as I can see, this is the text that defines the scope - that tells the reader what this article will be about. Why would we change that, if we don't have consensus on scope yet? You are perhaps trying to do something subtle that I am missing... I am sorry about that. Really I am - I don't want to piss anybody off. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll answer at my talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

How about the following wording, revised per Thargor's observation, so that there is zero issue of any change in scope? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the use of genetically modified food and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of from conventional crops, 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 first sentence is a bit awkward, but I agree with the overall sentiments. What not keep it simple: There is controversy over the use of genetically modified food derived from genetically modified crops and genetically modified organisms. AIRcorn (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I have no complaints with either formulation, and probably prefer the detail of Tryptofish's. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I used the somewhat longer language that I did, in order to not change things too much from what we have now. I'm receptive to revising it, but two things about Aircorn's suggestion don't work for me. First, I would rather continue to have the page name in bold. Second, I think it's helpful to explain that the controversy is relative to foods derived from conventionally bred crops. Of course, that latter point seems self-evident to those of us who have spent time editing here, but I'm thinking in terms of readers who are totally new to the concept. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I know convention is to bold, but I don't think it works that well for descriptive titles. It is already describe so it often sounds like we are just repeating ourselves (i.e. genetically modified food controversies are controversies over genetically modified food). Plus it means four "genetically modifieds" in one sentence. We could always add a second sentence with the detail. Not too fussed though so happy to go with the original suggestion. AIRcorn (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I decided to be bold myself (sorry, I couldn't resist the pun!), and make the change for now. I think you make a valid point about too may "gm"s in a row, and I'm fine with the idea of looking at further revisions of it. But for now, I think the most important thing was to get rid of that mess with "advantages and disadvantages" and "to cite or not to cite". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
          • I think my fix might have helped on that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Sorry, which fix are you referring to? (I've lost track, with all the activity here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Never mind. I wrote that here before seeing the edit that you made. Yes, it was very helpful, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Editing down GM wheat section

OK, I made a bold edit and Canoe just reverted so as per BRD I am opening a discussion. There was recently an escape of GM wheat. Content was added rather breathlessly on the chance that this would become a Big Deal. It turn out to be a small thing - normal trade has resumed, and the markets were not disrupted very much. So I edited this down to give it appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Right now it is bloated and doesn't deserve so much space as it is a small event. There you go. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If you think it is too large then I will create a stand alone article for it. All the material is relative and valuable to our readers.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are OK with it, would you please un-revert? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, I'm leaning toward agreeing with you on this one, actually, but I am curious as to why you think the section, as you wrote it, is the appropriate weight for how the situation ended up. I think it needs to be longer than what Jytdog shrunk it to, but I can also see the point on the other end. Can you provide a rationale for the size of the section? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thargor. I think we need basically three sentences: one to say that the GM wheat was discovered; the second to give background (who owned it, field testing, regulatory status) and a third to say "turned out to be no big deal". What more should it say? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a fourth sentence expanding on the impacts - Japan and South Korea halting imports and the concerns of non-GMO growers. But I agree that the current paragraph gives too much weight to this incident. AIRcorn (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat like Thargor and Aircorn, I'd like to see a middle ground on the amount of text. There's one thing I feel pretty strongly about, though: "declared safe" in the first sentence should be reverted back to "approved". We've had this discussion before. Regulatory agencies approve products; they obviously determine in the course of approval that there is sufficient safety to justify approval, but that's not quite the same thing as stating with scientific certainty that there is zero possibility of some detail being unsafe. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I am very OK with the 4th sentence, yes. And heck yes on the "approved." Will implement these two things. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of sourced material. Either it should all stay here or exist in its own article. I will let all of you choose the article title this time so we don't need another name change farce.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, the question is one of WP:UNDUE, as per the discussion above, where there is agreement that the section is too long. Would you please address that - questions of weight have nothing to do with whether the content is sourced or not. ThanksJytdog (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I just made an edit that undid Canoe's most recent edits, and I want to explain precisely why I did so.

1. [3]: The edit summary indicates that Canoe (1) is reverting Jytdog's edit, and (2) is accusing Jytdog of edit warring. First of all, Jytdog was making an edit based on the discussion here, and I thank him for the fact that he was not edit warring, not at all. Secondly, if there is any issue of edit warring, then a revert edit would only be extending the edit war. That's what an edit war is: editors reverting one another. So that edit summary is truly illogical. Now as to the validity or not of Jytdog's edit, not only Jytdog, but Thargor Orlando, Aircorn, and I have commented in this talk section in favor of the kind of edit that Jytdog made. Only Canoe has expressed a dissenting opinion. So Jytdog's edit is, for now, the consensus, pending further discussion.
2. [4]: The addition of a cite needed tag seems to me to be WP:POINTy. The sentence is defining the controversies on this page as being about whether or not GMOs are safe. It isn't claiming that they are safe. There is no need for a citation at that point, when the rest of the page goes into both sides of the issue.
3. [5]: The edit summary describes the section header as "keeps getting lost", as though the edit was correcting an error in earlier edits. This is manifestly untrue. Editors have removed it, repeatedly, on WP:UNDUE grounds. One editor repeatedly putting it back is, indeed, edit warring.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish's rationale seems sound. There's seems to be a consensus here that the prior version suffers from WP:UNDUE issues. Canoe, your stance is clearly "all or nothing", but I'm not sure I understand why? I just know that that's what you want right now. Perhaps you'd persuade people if you explain your side a little more? Sergecross73 msg me 20:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The explanation is simple. I believe many of these Monsanto and GMO articles are being content controlled by a small group of editors to remove or hide negative material from our readers. This causes articles to not be neutral according to our Wikipedia:Five pillars. They use Wikipedia:GANG numbers to get their versions kept with few valid arguments in consensus discussions. If this continues I will email every environmental group I can find to contact every media outlet they can find to look into all of the edit histories etc. Jimbo is aware of this but I don't he has had time to look into the depth of it. The last statement I saw from him indicated it was just a content issue. I do hope he does take a deeper look into it before I start the above campaign as well as others I have that I can't mention due to policy violations for discussing them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, thank you for stating your view of the situation. Please let me suggest that other editors not dispute with what Canoe said, here on this article talk page. Let's leave it to administrators and the rest of the dispute resolution process, and instead focus on content here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Look Canoe, I'm getting very tired of your unfounded conspiracy theory stuff. I can't keep helping you if that's where you keep going when things aren't going your way. The people in this discussion have all presented logical stances based on policy. I can't speak for their intentions directly, but I do certainly hope you aren't inferring I am in some sort of conspiracy like this, especially after the great lengths I've gone through to both assist you, and mediate issues you have stirred up. I personally have no interest or stance in GMO/Monsato related things. I don't even know much about them, I'm acting purely in interpreting Wiki-policy, not directing the actual information. Anyways, you really need to stop this sort of mentality, or people are certainly going to be taking you to ANI and advocating your block. And at this rate, I absolutely won't be defending you... Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider it a conspiracy theory but fact. You asked for my reasoning and I gave it. I had a collection of diffs before I recently lost my hard drive. They won't be hard to collect again for any new drama board attempt but to list and pointify them here would be considered personal attacks. If I am asked to justify my claims at a drama board then they would be defense of my points and not attacks. That will probably be another Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. The stances don't seem logical to me nor based on policies such as Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, etc. but based on Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, Wikipedia:WIKIHOUNDING, and Wikipedia:Canvassing etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realize I asked for you reasoning. Now I'm telling you that your reasoning are terribly off-base. Best of luck with your pursuits; you will certainly need it as long as this is your approach... Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Sergecross, I agree with everything you said. And, now that we have had an administrative comment, I hope that the rest of us will turn now to content. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If we have factual, well-sourced material on this issue, it seems like common sense to either (a) keep it or (b) make a new article to hold and maybe (c) expand on it. We absolutely should not delete good material because someone thinks it's inappropriately long for the umbrella article it's currently in. groupuscule (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in! If anybody wants to take the time to create another article based on material removed from here, due to WP:UNDUE, they certainly can do. Nobody said much in response to that, since the question at hand is how much weight to give to the event in this article. The material is not lost - it is always there in the history. Jytdog (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a joke, Jytdog. Our readers shouldn't be expected to look for censored material in article histories. Would someone like to choose a name for the new article or should I choose one unilaterally?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BB, articles are trivial to delete/rename/etc. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no censoring going on - this is a good faith discussion about WP:WEIGHT which is common garden-tending in Wikipedia articles, especially in "umbrella" articles like this one. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, no censoring, just WP:Summary style. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Any removal of sourced material that our readers should see, I consider as censorship. The goal of Wikipedia is to expand and split, not to merge and delete.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That's OK then, we are just deciding which of the sourced material our readers should see. --Roxy the dog (patronize me) 20:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That is the same as stating that governments like China's decide which websites their citizens have access too, which is censorship.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You have not responded to anything about WP:WEIGHT, which is what drove the consensus here. Also, as mentioned several times, if you think the event meets the criteria for a standalone article and care about this enough to spend time on it, nothing is stopping anybody from creating a standalone article. Please, please stop with the ABF. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, I even asked you above as to why you felt that was an appropriate weight for the section. No one is censoring anything: we're all in agreement that it should be noted in some form. The question is about how much. I doubt the information can sustain its own article, so work with us on trying to find a viable solution. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You both keep beaking off about WP:WEIGHT and you haven't even read the policy. WP:WEIGHT refers to balancing neutrality and not a lame excuse to censor sourced details that are neutral.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

We actually agree 100%. So can you please explain why you feel the information has an appropriate weight to the article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

New article created

It now appears this content has been forked off to Monsanto modified wheat mystery. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It is actually a split and not a fork. Consensus above agrees that it may be too much to include in this article. A split like I did with the Taco Bell recall provides our readers with more complete content and at the same time doesn't bloat this article. I still believe there is far to much Monsanto spam/POV in this article that should be removed. Much of it is not controversial. I tried removing some once but a tag team kept adding it back.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's enough material there to constitute an article. It's a fork because you're simply ignoring the consensus here that it's too much information, and just putting it elsewhere. I'm holding out for more input before I consider an AfD, but people here should be aware of it regardless. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia should never be accused of having "too much information". I still feel other editors are lumping this into negative GMO/Monsanto material that they want to censor from our readers. When I try to remove all the Monsanto brochure spam from the article then why are my edits reverted by tag team?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There's plenty of inclusionism in the project, and I tend to fall in your direction on the matter. With that said, there is a such thing as "too much information," especially when the information is part of a larger piece (such as this) and threatens to overwhelm a necessary topic with too much information. No one here, to my knowledge, is interested in censorship. We're instead interested in an information, truthful encyclopedia entry on the topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that an AfD would end in "keep", because, per the sources cited on the page, there has been enough mainstream news coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. The page name sounds odd to me, because of the word "mystery". I do realize that a couple of the sources also describe it with that word, so I can't really argue that it's wrong, but it does sound a bit whimsical to my ears. When the page was created, I thought briefly about moving it to "incident", and then decided not to bother. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I just chose the title from the first source used. It matches RS and common name.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Merger discussion

I'm officially requesting, given the nomination withdrawal, to merge the article back here for the sake of proper weight. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a crock. Consensus wanted it split to avoid bloat. Moving it back will simply cause the same POV censorship of sourced material.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There have been repeated claims of "POV censorship of sourced material" &c. That's a serious allegation. Is there any evidence? bobrayner (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus wanted to cut down the amount of information for issues of weight. At least two people expressed concern that splitting it would not result in a sustainable article and would add to the weight issues, as well as be a content fork. Thus this discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Strictly speaking, the AfD has not been closed yet, although the WP:SNOW seems to be piling up. There has previously been discussion on this talk page about the material, and I think that there are compelling reasons to treat it here per WP:Summary style, so I oppose the merge back to here. Look, the material is notable, as Wikipedia defines notability, but it is undue weight to have a long section on it here. The other page just needs to be fixed. And the removal of the merge tags was disruptive, so I restored them, despite my personal opposition to merging. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support Either here or to a better split form of this page per my alternative suggestion at Monsanto modified wheat mystery#Alternative idea. AIRcorn (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I like your suggestion! Put all the escapes in one article. Link is wrong tho - the suggestion is at the bottom of the Talk page which doesn't have a table of contents yet.Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the correct link: Talk:Monsanto modified wheat mystery#Alternative idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As I've said at the other talk page, I enthusiastically support Aircorn's idea about a page about all the "escapes". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 25 September 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)

• Still waiting for response.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Unclear what you are waiting on a response to, as there is now a significant Starlink section in the health section, as per this. Would you please clarify what content you want to change now? Also more recently, you have argued in several places that the Starlink content does not belong in Health at all, but instead under Regulatory - most recently (I think) August 26 2013 here, in point 3. (which is confusing, as Starlink is already discussed in the Regulatory section, and has been for a long time now.) It would be really great if you would say specifically what changes to the article as it stands now, that you would like to see. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It is controversial for a few reasons. None of the sources state that it being allergenic is controversial. It was controversial for other reasons including health, regulatory, etc. I should be able to add it as sources indicate to sections without being reverted by a Wikipedia:OWN batch of editors using Wikipedia:Tag team to censor sourced negative content because they Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT or because of their Wikipedia:POV pushing--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, Wikipedia is governed by policy, guidelines, and most importantly, by WP:CONSENSUS - no one gets to do whatever one wants here. A community of editors who work with civility toward consensus is neither a gang nor a conspiracy. Again, it would be really great if you would say specifically what changes to the article as it stands now, that you would like to see, with respect to the Starlink incident.Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe knows where the dispute resolution boards are. Until he heads to one of them I would suggest just ignoring his rants here. AIRcorn (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You all seem to be spewing the same crap you have before. That I somehow need your permission before I edit articles. I consider this very bad faith due to Wikipedia:OWN, Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT, etc. Your WP:CONSENSUS arguments are total crap because the same small group of POV editors feel that they have the only right to control article content. This has created an article full of censorship, whitewashing, and spam that is very far from neutral and is almost useless to our readers. The dispute processes have been a joke so far because you all keep spewing the same crap there and that creates Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read that most admin just ignore and causes any resolutions to just stall out with your personal versions of very bad articles remaining to make us look bad.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic rant, well done. I'm going down the pub to see my mates Dunning and Kruger. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 23:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe you are clearly frustrated and I am sorry about that. However, what I wrote above, about the centrality of WP:CONSENSUS is true, likewise the importance of WP:AGF to the process of reaching consensus. I encourage you to discuss here what specific changes you would like to see with respect to content about Starlink. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You are repeating the same crock of crap, Jytdog. You want me to ask your permission to edit your article. I should be free to edit it without reverts by the same Wikipedia:GANG that Wikipedia:OWNs the article reverting my edit with tag teams. Until this changes then the article will continue to be censored and whitewashed. This is Wikipedia:Gaming the system and is the main issue that you continue to ignore.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Again sorry that you are frustrated. This thread re-started when you noted that you wanted to discuss content - I am still looking for what exactly it is, that you want to see changed in the article.Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You are still suggesting that I need your permission to edit your article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not what I have written nor suggested, now or ever. I do understand that you are claiming that I am trying to own the article. However consensus by the editing community is very different from any single person owning an article - I am sorry you don't understand that. I am indeed asking you questions - you raised a complaint above that you were not responded to, and I gave you the courtesy of responding and have been trying to understand your complaint about content. I am now moving on to other things.Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that Canoe is suggesting that heshe should be allowed to edit against consensus. I don't understand why heshe should think that way. Are there any special people on the wiki who are allowed to edit against consensus? I am not aware of any, but I am a novice - could we nominate Canoe to join those special people? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 18:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus with most of these articles. It is just the same Wikipedia:GANG Wikipedia:Gaming the system and trying to BS other editors into accepting their censored versions as neutral by consensus. The consensus is amongst a very few that try to Wikipedia:BULLY others into accepting their BS versions of articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment about archiving, not directly about the content discussed here. I agree with Aircorn's reverting of the archive bot settings to 21 days. That doesn't mean that Canoe or anyone else cannot seek to have a discussion continue longer than that. It just means that it's more effective to put an updated comment or question here, with a current timestamp, as just above. The archive bot will see that timestamp and save the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

References

References

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)