Open main menu

Talk:Genetically modified organism


GM cattle, modified to improve digestionEdit

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2017Edit

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017Edit

Hello, this is the current text that I suggest be changed:

"A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques (i.e., a genetically engineered organism). GMOs are used to produce many medications and genetically modified foods and are widely used in scientific research and the production of other goods. The term GMO is very close to the technical legal term, 'living modified organism', defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates international trade in living GMOs (specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology").

A more specifically defined type of GMO is a "transgenic organism." This is an organism whose genetic makeup has been altered by the addition of genetic material from an unrelated organism. This should not be confused with the more general way in which "GMO" is used to classify genetically altered organisms, as typically GMOs are organisms whose genetic makeup has been altered without the addition of genetic material from an unrelated organism."

Reasoning for Suggested Edit: The terms "GMO", "genetically engineered", and "transgenic" are not interchangeable, as they mean separate things. Several sources, listed below, choose to make a distinction between the term "GMO" and "Transgenic". - A GMO is any organism in which a modification to the DNA has occurred. This means spontaneous mutations that occur in the wild, cross pollination, and genetic engineering are all methods by which modifications to DNA can occur. GMOs can occur in nature or be man-made. - A genetically engineered organism is an organism that has had foreign DNA added, native DNA removed, or native DNA added through the use of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering can be used to move DNA between related species (cisgenic) or to delete DNA within an organism. In either of these scenarios, no foreign DNA is being added to the organism and therefore it cannot be considered "transgenic", but the organism has been genetically engineered. - A transgenic organism specifically refers to an organism whose genome contains foreign DNA from an unrelated species that was introduced through the use of genetic engineering.

So all transgenic organisms are GMOs, but not all GMOs are transgenic organisms, despite the misuse of the terms by the public and the media.

The suggested edit is as follows:

"A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered either through natural hybridization, natural mutation, selective breeding, mutation breeding, or through genetic engineering. GMOs are used to produce many medications and genetically modified foods and are widely used in scientific research and the production of other goods. The term GMO is very close to the technical legal term, 'living modified organism', defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates international trade in living GMOs (specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology").

A more specifically defined type of GMO is a "transgenic organism." This is an organism whose genetic makeup has been altered by the addition of genetic material from an unrelated organism. The term "transgenic organism" is not synonymous with the term "GMO" as not all genetically modified organisms are transgenic, that is, not all genetically modified organisms contain DNA from unrelated species."


North Carolina State Extension Service:

GMO Answers:

United States Department of Agriculture Glossary of Biotechnology Terms:

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report Genetically Engineered Crops - Experiences and Prospects (free download) glossary on page 579 Jwindha (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that imprecise term GMO is used even in scientific papers (though I know quite a few professors who actively discourage that in peer-review). We would need to pull more sources together than this from other regulatory agencies, etc. to describe the scientific definition, but also deal with how the public uses the term GMO versus what it means in reality. It would actually be quite a bit of work to tackle this subject with more than just this edit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No such thing as "unrelated organisms"Edit

" unrelated organism" I'm not sure what that means, or whether it is a meaningful distinction, as all (or possibly most all) organisms on Earth are related. You can talk about "degree of relationship" defined by some criteria indicating generations of separation, such as the percentage of DNA pairs in common, but you cannot accurately say that any two organisms on Earth are "unrelated". Referring to organisms as unrelated flies in the face of everything that we currently understand about evolution of life on Earth. Furthermore, the same molecular engineering techniques can be used to transfer genes between naturally interbreeding organisms (closely related, same species, same population, even siblings), using the same techniques as between organisms that don't normally breed or interact in nature. More generally, the term Genetically Modified Organism, doesn't really distinguish the technology of molecular engineering, as there is no existing genetically unmodified organism, modification being the essence of evolution; and that every cultivar, Heritage or GMO, is "humanly modified," either intentionally or unintentionally (the moment humans start harvesting a plant or animal, they're modifying the genetic characteristic of that organism). --Catrachos (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

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

Fresh review which states "no scientific consensus" over the GMO safetyEdit

There is fresh review in Food and Chemical Toxicology Aristidis M.Tsatsakis et al. Impact on environment, ecosystem, diversity and health from culturing and using GMOs as feed and food.

It states "It is clear that the issue regarding toxicity of GM food and feed is not over and a consensus has not appeared" "The current range of toxicity tests present many limitations such as limited period of exposure and are strictly case specific. ... In such a situation, the current range of testing should be sufficiently criticized ". .... "It is also clearly necessary to focus the attention of policy makers, regulatory authorities, governments, and GM-releasing companies on the need to examine and authenticate the possible long term unexplored effects, risks and damages to ecosystems, biodiversity, and health prior to the release of any GM food or feed. Labeling should be mandatory and should be considered as a basic consumer right "

So I think current mention in gmo-related articles about consensus is incorrect Cathry (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A handful of researchers publishing against consensus doesn't invalidate it. That's not how scientific consensus works. Their concerns may be valid, but giving undue weight to specific viewpoints in the encyclopedia isn't neutral. The #Controversy section does note on some things, like that each GM food needs to be tested and that notable organizations (including the Union of Concerned Scientists) aren't completely "convinced". – Rhinopias (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you for bringing this source forward. As you can see from the notice at the top of this talk page, there are very specific rules that must be followed in the event that any of the language about this issue might undergo a change. I've looked at the paper abstract, and it appears to be to be in a legitimate scientific journal, and the abstract says very clearly that the authors reject the idea that there is a scientific consensus. I did a superficial check of the author affiliations, and they seem to be located at universities, albeit minor ones in mostly third world countries. Here are the websites of the first author [5], second author [6], and senior (last) author [7]. I don't know anything about their "political" (for lack of a better word that I can think of) views about GMOs. What do other editors think? Does this source rise to the level of requiring a revision? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
PS: The article appears to cover a lot of areas other than safety as food, such as environmental effects, that are distinct from the page content that is specifically about the safety of eating these crops, so I think we need to go past the paywall to assess exactly where the authors do or do not agree with the scientific consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Article available at ResearchGate. Cathry (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The institutions the authors are associated with is likely because of the funding for the research, which apparently is a grant from the Korea Food & Drug Administration and also support from the Russian Scientific Foundation. I don't think that we can judge the political motivations of researchers and assume they are reflected in peer-reviewed publications they are participating in, because that undermines the legitimacy of scientific publications. (Obviously, unless they have clear agendas that they have been publicly criticized for and their publications have been retracted as in these shenanigans.)
The article seems to be primarily about environmental concerns, however, the last sentence of the conclusion is surprisingly "Labeling should be mandatory and should be considered as a basic consumer right.":118 I don't see any actual aggregations of data in this (just regulatory things), but I am not a researcher in this field so I don't have the authority to claim whether or not their conclusions are supported.
Either way, this publication is very doubtfully going to be significant enough—being so small in scope in comparison—to draw enough support to alter the summarized text from the RfC. – Rhinopias (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
There is another review stating clearly about no scientific consensus - Sheldon Krimsky. An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment It is mentioned in current wording references, but is hidden. And there are other publications which don't use word "consensus", but demand more long-term research or/and reject "substantial equivalence concept". For example. I.M.Zdziarski et al. M crops and the rat digestive tract: A critical review Cathry (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── This isn't the forum for general discussion—see #Top. Your original proposition with the creation of this section was related the article, but since no changes can be made without another RfC, this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. – Rhinopias (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rhinopias for the link to the full PDF of the article. I've read it, and I share your opinion that this does not rise to the level of having a new RfC. The authors' conclusion begins: Collectively, the studies cited in this review clearly indicate that GM crops are prospering and have the potential to spread across the globe. The studies mention no direct harm to either human or animal health as a consequence of the consumption of GM food or feed. However, there remain concerns regarding the long-term usage of GM food and feed. Evidence presented indicating damage to the environment and biodiversity gives considerable grounds for concern, particularly with regard to the consequences of gene flow. There really is nothing new here, for our purposes. Issues of the environment and gene flow are unrelated to the consensus language, and are already well-covered on this page. Concerns about the need for more long-term tox studies are already covered on the page, and the authors agree with the scientific consensus about the lack of acute safety issues. That leaves us simply with the catchy language about "The 'consensus' over the GM safety is a falsely perpetuated construct" in the abstract, and the full text shows that the authors hold a more nuanced view than that, so it would be cherry-picking for us to change the page on that basis.
I think that for us to open up a major revision process, there would have to be a statement by the authors that new evidence has come forward to alter the scientific position on acute food safety, and/or a follow-up analysis of the report by a major authority such as the WHO saying that the previous scientific consensus now needs to be reconsidered. We do not have that. And as for the Krimsky opinion piece, it's already cited in the consensus language. And if we were to undertake a major revision, we would need to update the literature as a whole, including the Domingo re-analysis that came out just as the RfC was ending, in which Domingo said that although the earlier analysis (cited on the page) said more studies were needed, subsequent studies had provided enough evidence to conclude that acute food effects are safe. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Domingo don't said this "subsequent studies had provided enough evidence ", he said nearly opposite. Cathry (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Not that it's critical at this point, but you are thinking about [8], whereas I was talking about the subsequent reassessment: [9]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I thinking about latest 2016 study - he states "Long-term studies on the safety and the health effects of GM plants are still necessary." and rejects substantial equivalence concept. Cathry (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
And what he says about long-term studies is the same thing as the scientific consensus (see also: Wikipedia:Cherrypicking). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
But is not the thing in wikipedia articles, which states " currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk" If consensus states "long-term studies are nesessary" (and they cover only few of available varieties at this moment) it is impossible to state "no greater risk". Cathry (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying – I promise you that I really do. And I understand the logical aspect of it. But there is a difference between "longer studies are needed in order to have a complete scientific understanding, but based upon everything that we know now, scientists believe that there is no greater risk", which is what the sources tell us, and "longer studies are needed because it looks like acute studies might be showing danger", which is not the case. We can only go with the source material that we have now. I suspect that if longer studies start coming out that show long-term health hazards from eating GMO crops, the community will decide to revise the page, but that hasn't happened yet. And unless we have a specific proposal to change this content now, via a major RfC, discussing it here is WP:NOTFORUM. But I also sincerely appreciate your pointing out this new potential source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Domingo and many other scientists do not say they "believe that there is no greater risk". Actually some scientists say "90-day studies" and "substantial equivalence concept" are sufficient, they don't want long-term studies at all. But other scientists state long-term studies and more thorough chemical analysis are necessary to make any conclusions Cathry (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There is nothing really new in this review (i.e. emphasising the Pusztai and Seralini experiments and asking for more long term testing) that requires us to add or change anything here regarding the consensus. It could possibly replace or be added to the Krimsky footnote. We should probably look at updating Domingo first though. AIRcorn (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    Domingo did not change his view from 2011. But I think it is not adequate to hide him and Crimsky reviews in reference. Cathry (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)iew

This article makes out GMOs to have many pros and few cons, The cons are important to emphasis as well because without them the article seems to have a borderline pro GMO feel to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be advocating for a false sense of balance, that we must give more attention to whatever cons there are, no matter how trivial, because there are strong positives. It would be an inappropriate way to skew the article to try to make everything appear balanced. (Can you imagine being the editor who tries to come up with enough positive aspects for, say, cancer that it balances out the negatives?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

GMO foodsEdit

To the moderator of this page, please review the information below. Retain or discard as you see fit. seemed that some clarification was needed. I have a scientific back ground and a lot of non science people do not understand the pros and cons presented below.

It appears that the definition of GMO is rather narrow. Representing only lab style genetic engineering. aside from creating some fear, it also subverts the genetic engineering that's been going on for thousands of years through cross breeding. While "engineering" may produce quicker results, and is more flexible in the crossing of similar and non similar organisms. it should be noted that the cross breeding of food and animals that has gone on for 1000s of years has created genetically modified fruits vegetables farm animals and pets. Also, genetic modification through cross breeding is not always "safe" for the consumer or the organism. one may simply look at a wild strawberry vs a store strawberry to see the effect of cross breeding. Carrots, pumpkins, seedless fruits, cows, horses, dogs, cats, rabbits, and many more have all been "genetically modified" through cross breeding. It would seem the public should understand that genetic modification has been gong on for a long time, that the difference is speed of the cycle, and the ability to "splice in genes from dissimilar species. Certainly "gene engineering" is a faster and more dangerous process, this does not mean that the slower less dangerous "cross breeding" process is not with out dangers and problems. some cross breeding has involved "mixing" of species, Splake, Tiger musky, are 2 examples. these fish have been released in to the environment with little regard for the harm to native species they may cause. The long and short of my comments are: we have been playing games with the genetics of our food sources for 1000s of years, that care should be taken to help people understand both methods represent danger, mistakes, and some good, such as having a lot of food to eat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:AFC0:10:19D3:D789:75CD:E52F (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Not a moderator, but I edit around this area. This has come up before and consenus is that we use the narrower definition of genetic engineering here. This is mostly supported by modern reliable sources that term genetc engineering and gentically modified organisms this way. There is merit to including articficial selection, cross breeding, polyploidy, and even mutigenisis and cloning as historical aspects or supplementary information of gentic engineering. In fact there is a section dedicated to this at History of genetic engineering#Agriculture. This article, although not terribly well developed, incudes a paragraph referencing this and links to the main history article. As to saftey aspects between genetic engineering vs other genetic manipulation techniques there is scope to include this here, in Genetically modified food controversies, Regulation of genetic engineering and other articles, but we must be careful of keeping stuff WP:due and not going off into WP:coatracks. It used to be a messy area to edit in, but has died down somewhat now so feel free to sign up an add information yourself if you wish. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Article improvementsEdit

Merry Christmas. As anyone watching this page is well aware I have been doing extensive developments recently. Thanks to those that fixed some of my errors. I am looking to put this through the good article process, but thought I would solicit any opinions first. Basically I was trying to keep this a companion piece to genetic engineering. This one focusing more on the products, while the other more on the process. There was always going to be some overlap unfortunately, but hopefully it is not too bad. This has gotten quite long though, with 54kb readable prose, so there may be a case for trimming. I have copied information from here to recreated Genetically modified plant and Genetically modified animal articles (and will do the same for viruses and bacteria soon) so if this is trimmed the information will not be lost. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 09:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I very much appreciate this work, but there is a problem that concerns me significantly. Editors working on this page need to remember that there is a paragraph that was established at WP:GMORFC that must not be altered. Even if it is just an issue of formatting the citations – ping Boghog – this requirement still applies. This is a serious matter, subject to Discretionary Sanctions. There is no problem with a formatting change that is not visible, but recently there have repeatedly been changes that modify the within-citation direct quotes, changing line breaks or the positions of quote marks, and that is not OK. I've been correcting these things, but I should not have to do so, and I certainly do not want the problem to get worse in the course of a GA review. After the most recent round of edits (I assume the ones by you, Aircorn), there is now a citation error within that paragraph, that needs to be fixed promptly. Apparently, some new content in the page uses <ref name=AMA/>, creating a conflict with the RfC paragraph: see the references list. The citation within the RfC paragraph should remain as it is, and the citation somewhere else on the page (I'm not going to look for it) should be revised to something like AMA2.
I realize that these are good-faith errors, so I have no intention of going after anyone, but please stop introducing these problems. There is a very simple way to avoid any problems at all: do not alter the paragraph, even if it is simply a matter of "consistent formatting". A bit of inconsistent formatting is not the worst thing in the world, and it is important not to start down the road of small changes to the consensus paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, fine, but there was absolutely no warning given to editors in the article itself that there is a special paragraph that has been frozen in time. There is a warning on this talk page, but not in the article itself. I have added one. It might be better to move this text into a template and transclude the template back into this article (and any other articles that contain this text). Just out of curiosity, and changes to this text (e.g., adding more recent sources) would require a new RFC? Boghog (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, even adding more recent sources would require either: a new RfC of equivalent prominence, or a consensus of admins at WP:AE, or permission from ArbCom. The GMO ArbCom case was such a bloodletting that this is the way that things are, and why I'm so sensitive about it. But to repeat: I realize everyone here was acting in good faith. I know there is an edit notice every time anyone edits the page, that points to the DS and refers to page-specific restrictions, which in this case means looking at the talk page to see the information about the RfC. I think transcluding a new template might require prior permission from ArbCom. I'm just explaining that; I didn't make the rules. I like what you did with the non-displaying notice. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
It may be overturned only by another widely published full 30-day RfC, a consensus of administrators at WP:AE, or by decree of the Arbitration Committee. Whether that applies to small edits and modifications could be debated. There was talk of updating the Domingo reference some time ago. Suffice it to say that any change will need some sort of strong consensus. It was a necessary evil at the time and has done its job remarkably well. Personally I have reservations trancluding article content in article space (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 147#Transcluding article content into other articles). The hidden text is a good idea though and I will add it to the other articles. AIRcorn (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The way I see it, anything that changes the meaning requires that kind of permission. That would certainly include adding a more recent citation, because that would be tantamount to updating what the RfC decided. For minor modifications such as formatting, I think it's important to keep in mind that each one of the quotations within the citations was fought over scorched earth. When someone makes a relatively trivial revision (maybe that's where the ref name=AMA came from), I take into consideration whether it was good faith. And again, all of what happened this time was entirely good faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
It may well be that we have made a rod for our own back, but I still think it carries more positives than negatives. FWIW I have added the hidden test to all the articles covered under WP:GMORFC so hopefully that helps prevent these good faith edits and saves everyone a bit of angst. AIRcorn (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sorry to do this to you, but I think you introduced the cite error. It was not present when I finished editing last night[10] and came about with this diff. Going back to the original addition of the paragraph in July 2016 it did not use <ref name=AMA/> [11]. Anyway it is really a minor issue, easily solved. I only mention it here because it was assumed I caused it.
I am more interested in the order of the paragraphs in that section. I can understand wanting to keep it as a separate paragraph, but I would like to at least move the health introductory sentence above it. I think it would be good to keep the environmental concerns next followed by the miscellaneous ones. Basically from my understanding health is the main concern (hence the RFC), followed by the environment. It currently doesn't flow well going intro - scientific consensus on health - miscellaneous - health - environment. This is a diff of what I propose [12] (not sure why the spaces were removed, might be a bug in visual editor). I fully understand the importance of the consensus paragraph, I would not be editing this article if we hadn't got that resolution, and have been careful not to change it or edit against the spirit of it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
As I said, I realize that everybody was acting in good faith, so I'm OK with taking the blame for the cite error. But all I did was restore the cite information that had been there before your edits, and your edits brought in the second "AMA" cite, so, whatever.
About the paragraph order, I'm fine with the reordering you suggest, thanks for asking. But please do not restore it by self-reverting. Please make a clean edit, because your first edit reverted what Boghog did. I just don't want the RfC paragraph to be too low, and I don't want it combined into another paragraph. While you are at it, you might want to check whether, in fact, there are some duplicate citations. I think there might be, for AAAS and AMA, but I didn't check carefully. They look different because of the within-cite quotations. But it would be fine to leave the RfC cites as is, and use their "ref name="s to cite them again in other paragraphs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I really didn't. It was never in the addition of the paragraph after the RFC and it was already present elsewhere before I started the latest round of edits search ref name="AMA" here. In fact the cause of the issue was another good faith user who combined the cites 2 weeks ago.[13] Anyway, I didn't start this section to go diff diving so hopefully this clears it up.
I was hoping to get some opinions on broad issues like Wikipedia:Article size (I am fine with it, but realise it is borderline) and missing info (maybe a definition section of what is a GMO, but that is covered in Genetic engineering). I am pretty happy with where we sit personally so if there are no other major concerns I will take a little break from it and then do a final copy-edit. I do not enjoy the busy-work of consistently formatting refs and am happy as long as the information is easy for readers to find. That is one of the reasons why I focus on GAs and not FAs. For those unfamiliar these are the criteria I am aiming for. AIRcorn (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Given that the issue I raised became sort-of off-topic for the GA effort, please feel free, if you would like to, to collapse the discussion starting at my first comment and continuing through the first paragraph of your most recent comment here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I saw the updates just as I was getting away from the computer for awhile. I haven't had a chance to really dig into them all for potential trimming, etc., but overall they look like pretty good additions. I've been meaning to do a read through of the whole article sometime soon after the New Year, so I'll see what I can do to help before a GA review. The one that might get a little dicey, but needs to be addressed before GA is the definition of GMO especially in relation to gene editing, but also how it was a nebulous term scientifically before gene editing really came up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
It is briefly mentioned (two sentences) under regulation regarding the different take US has compared to EU. There is also the older meanings of GMO re traditional breeding that may need to be given context and still comes up at these pages every now and again, so maybe an Etymology section is needed. When I was writing this I was adding information as I found it and some is probably more important than others. I tried to keep it to themes and emphasised the research side more as it tends to get overlooked here and I didn't want this to become just another GM crop article. Also what I found interesting might not be great encyclopaedically. I have some ideas of what could be trimmed or maybe even combined, but will not prejudge you. Thanks for the help and thoughts, you too Trypto. AIRcorn (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad that we are good on it. I'm going to mostly leave the GA to you and KofA and whoever else wants to do it, because my bandwidth for it is already a bit full: I'm helping get another page to FA, and the whole GM area has gotten to feel like "work" for me. So good luck, and let me know if there is something specific where I can help. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The recent addition of the Etylmology section looks pretty good. It's more comprehensive than the draft I had partially put together. I still have a few sources I have to dig through that I could add, and I'll take care of wrapping that and the overall read-through I mentioned tomorrow and Monday. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I am going to play with Template:Genetic engineering sidebar and update the Template:Genetic engineering over the next few days so hopefully I will keep out of your way. AIRcorn (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't expect that to affect anything I'll be doing. Hopefully I'll have everything wrapped before Tuesday or close to it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Aircorn, I just did my once over, and most anything I could think of wasn't really needed for fleshing out at this article in terms of GA assessment here afterall. Most things I initially had in mind as potential issues keep an eye out for are better addressed at the crops article and are either given just enough of a brief review here or aren't mentioned to avoid getting into the weeds. I'd be pretty comfortable seeing this nominated for GA as it stands. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Having a little bit of trouble parsing that, but get the bottom line that it is ready to go. Thanks for your read through, much appreciated. AIRcorn (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Protected articlesEdit

Why is this article protected from editing? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

To prevent vandalism and the like. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

GA ReviewEdit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Genetically modified organism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing now, but I might take a few days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

  • vital to the discovery and development of cures and treatments for many serious diseases. – I would be careful here. "Vital" seems not the the correct word, as there are other means of curing diseases, GMOs are not "vital" for this.
    • Changed to important and re wrote the sentence to emphasise that this refers to GMOs as the creation of model organisms for human diseases. AIRcorn (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • says that the plants or animals – what about other lifeforms, such as bacteria and fungy? Maybe say "life forms" instead? Same issue repeats on several other locations.
    • Yeah that should cover all organisms. AIRcorn (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • with genes by introduced, eliminated, or rearranged – something missing here?
  • The term GMO originally was not used until it became common through popular media to the point even scientists began to use it. – Bit vague, when was it not used? Besides, any term would not be used before coming into use, so the sentence does not make a clear point.
This one was my doing, so I'll address it. Basically, GMO has not been a preferred term by scientists compared to genetically engineered organism as outlined in the rest of the paragraph, and GMO really wasn't used at the time. The sources are basically describing that GMO became more common in scientific literature after it caught on in popular culture despite the initial preference and precision issues. I've changed the text a bit and moved it behind the sentence talking about precision in terminology to make this a bit more clear. Let me know if something still isn't clear on that front. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would suggest to name the section "definition" instead of "etymology".
Done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This can be taken from a cell containing the gene – suboptimal wording, I suggest to simply write "This gene can be taken from a cell".
  • "certain stresses (e.g. thermal or electric shock)." – maybe "(e.g. thermal stress or electric shock)"?
    • I can't think of or find any ther methods so got rid of the e.g and just mentioned those two methods. Used usually just in case and added a cite. AIRcorn (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • inserted it into a plasmid and then induced another bacteria to incorporate the plasmid – "induced other bacteria" or "induced another bacterium
    • went with induced other bacteria as it would have been more than one AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • engineered to produce human tissue plasminogen activator in 1987 – Maybe an explanation (what is tissue plasminogen activatior) would be good here.
    • Added a wikilink and short explanation. AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • ice-minus strain – can you link or explain?
    • I go into more detail on this under bacteria so hope to just kept it general here. Went with just a strain of Pseudomonas syringae. Let me know if that works. AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The first genetically modified animal to be approved for food use was AquAdvantage salmon in 2015. – Approved in which country?
    • USA. Added a second sentence mentioning that they are raised in Panama as well AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
      • FDA approved in the US, but as of Feb 2019 still not being SOLD in the US. Release to market got stalled in labeling law. Instead, first actual sales were in Canada, August 2017. I added refs to confirm both. Raised in Panama does not mean sold in Panama. And anyway, AquaBounty changed its mind and intends to produce fish for US in Indiana. For the moment, not allowed to move eggs from the egg facility in Canada, to US.
  • Bacteria are the simplest model organism – Model organisms are species, but Bacteria is a large clade.
  • Most food-producing bacteria are lactic acid bacteria, and this is where the majority of research into genetically engineering food-producing bacteria has gone. – Maybe add which foods they produce?
    • I have some examples at the end of the paragraph. Do you think it needs more? AIRcorn (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • reduce toxic byproduct production – is "reduce toxic byproducts" enough?
    • Don't quite follow this. AIRcorn (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I meant you could avoid repeating "product" if you would delete the word "production". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Food products from genetically modified bacteria – again, I think we need to know which countries this applies to.
    • Best source I found was dated 2015 so used "as of". AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Application of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and other bacteria can help protect crops from insect infestation and plant diseases – How does this work? How do you apply a bacterium? Do you mean specific genes or proteins taken from this bacterium?
    • This was just part of an introductory sentence into bacteria used in agriculture. It is application of the whole bacteria in a spray usually used by organic farmers. It is quite popular, or at least was. I think there are issues with the sun degrading it and rain washing it off, so not sure how effective it is. The genes taken from this bacterium form a large part of the GM crop section. I kept most of the info tied to that section. If it is less confusing I can move it down there, or just delete it as I am not talking about them as specific GMOs here. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • they can compete with the ice-plus bacteria – you write "the ice plus bacteria", but this term was not formerly mentioned, and deserves explanation and/or a link.
    • Its just a way to differentiate from the ice-minus strain. Will reword. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Heading Virus – Maybe in plural, Viruses?
  • set back the development of this approach for many years. When was that?
    • Added date of Jesse Gelsinger trial to sentence. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Herpes simplex viruses is a promising vector – mixes plural and singular
  • Another approach is to use vectors to create novel vaccines for diseases that have no vaccines available – How does this work? Maybe try to provide some general idea?
    • The original source was quite broad so found an example for tuberculosis (which is possibly the most important one). Don't really want to go into too much detail here as I am trying to keep it overviewish. It went to phase II trials, but although safe wasn't as effective as hoped. AIRcorn (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Outside of biology scientists have used a genetically modified virus to construct a more environmentally friendly lithium-ion battery and other nanostructured materials. – Maybe a short explanation here to get an idea how it works?
    • Not my area, but I tried to explain it as best I could (had to try and understand it myself first). AIRcorn (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • and as of 2016 two genetically modified yeasts involved in the fermentation of wine have been commercialised – again, in which country?
  • to create new colours in plants – unprecise. Does it refer to flowers, or to colors of crops?
  • It was the first plant to be genetically engineered – Tobaco is not an originally engineered plant. Maybe reword "It was the first plant to be altered using genetic engineering"?
  • As such the transgenic tools and procedures are well established  – but only for tabacco? Maybe make this clear
    • Clarified. Arabidopsis is up there too, but this is made implied later.
  • has abundant bioinformatic resources – I don't understand this.
    • Online databases and such. Have said this. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • (actually lavender or mauve) – please link these colors
  • to produce greater volume and better products. – better is too vague and not neutral. There are many people who would not consider any GMO product as "better".
    • The more obvious advantage to moving pathways is to express greater amounts so removed the better products part. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • plants can modify the proteins post-translationally – maybe add an accessible explanation in brackets.
    • Found a better wikilink, Can add an example or explanation if you want, but would rather use wikilinks. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • user:Aircorn, very interesting, and important article. Looks very good. I copy edited as I went. More comments soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for doing this. I will work through these today and comment below each point. AIRcorn (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @Jens Lallensack: I think I have either fixed all the raised issues or responded here. Sorry it took a bit longer than I expected. I really appreciate the review and look forward to the second half. I should warn you that my hands will be a bit tied when it comes to the controversy section (ARB enforced wording needs to be used there). Don't let that stop you making any suggestions as myself and a few other editors are familiar with what can and can't be done there. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Convenience breakEdit

  • the end aims are much the same as plants – "as in plants"? "as for plants"? I'm not a native speaker.
    • As for sounds better to me. AIRcorn (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The development of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system has effectively halved the amount of time needed – How does that relate to the previous info? Does it allow to change stem cells directly?
    • Yep. It is pretty much a game breaker. Elucidated. AIRcorn (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Human alpha-1-antitrypsin is another protein that has been produced and is used in treating humans with this deficiency – but is this also from the mentioned goat?
  • GMO lifestock: You are listing several, but without stating if these have already been approved somewhere. I guess not?
    • Nope, unless you count salmon. Added a sentence to the first paragraph of the animal section to indicate what has been approved and where. AIRcorn (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Text and refs added to indicate being sold in Canada as of 2017, not yet (as of Feb 2019) sold in US. David notMD (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • to become publicly available as a pet – but not worldwide, right?
    • No. Like most of the others it is the US. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The article is supposed to be in British English, right? Whatch out for American spellings, such as color.
I didn't notice British variants being used before, but in terms of WP:ENGVAR, the first usage I could find was generalize (as opposed to generalise) making the default American English and the most recent comment in 2014 I could find said American too. I can go through and standardize to American unless anyone has strong objections to this change? Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I probably wrote 80% of the current article (if not more) and while not British, my native variant is closely related to that. As such my default spelling comes out. So many lame wars have been fought over what in the end is a relatively minor issue that if someone wants to enforce WP:Retain to an American version I am not going to to fight it. AIRcorn (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I personally don't usually find it a big deal which one is used even if it's inconsistent (I didn't notice at all in my previous reviews), but I also saw a fair mix of both uses now that I look. You never know if someone might raise a fuss in the future on RETAIN though, so it'll save some hassle by going to American now since it'll be copy-edited now anyways. I'll take care of that in a bit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It obtained regulatory approval in 2015 – but where?
    • DavidMD has added some more info on the countries. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Transposons are well developed in Drosophila – what does "well developed" mean here? Maybe write "abundant" instead?
    • Not sure about abundant. I was trying to say that transposon editing techniques were well developed. Reworded. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • in its egg passed regulatory approval in 2015. – Where?
    • Another one for the US. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • are used in development biology – developmental biology research?
  • nemotode – you consistently spell it like this, but isn't it "nematode"?
  • say that absent scientific evidence of harm even voluntary labeling is misleading – should it be "in the absence of scientific evidence"?
    • Both seem to read alright to me. I like the first one slightly better as it only has the one of and is slightly shorter. Not too fussed if somoene wants to change it though. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The regulations section has very little on regulation of research. Do these regulation mean that certain nations are much more advanced in GMO research than others?
    • I have had a tremendous amount of difficulty finding sources on the regulation in lab as opposed to the release. When I wrote Regulation of genetic engineering the best source I found was from the University of Woolongong. I don't know if this information is just not easily available, is kept in house or is just flooded out by regulations involving the release of GMOs. It has been a little while since I searched for this so will give it another go now. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Okay found a few decent papers (-crops and -food in the search engine helped). Added quite a bit to the regulation article and a trimmed down version here. Hopefully this covers enough. Luckily the laboratory regulations are pretty consistent across all countries. AIRcorn (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • As to whether some countries are more advanced than others, I have not really found anything useful to add here. Common sense would say that countries with less scientific funding in general would be behind, but that is not A GM thing in particular. The regulations for research appear pretty consistent across most major scientific players so I imagine the reulations themselves don't play much role in this. AIRcorn (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • To get a more worldwide view, maybe mention the (apparently only three) countries where GMO foods are banned entirely?
    • Curious where you got the three number from, it may be outdated. Looking at the Genetic Literacy Project there are currently nine countries that ban the growing and importing GM food. I don't like using that as a source, but have no reason to doubt them. I will look for a better one. AIRcorn (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Could not find anything suitable so used the Literacy one. If this is a problem I could use individual sources for each country. AIRcorn (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Article is strongly focused on the US, but almost nothing on China, despite it being a major player in research. I wonder what the regulations are in China? Apparently labeling is mandatory, but research seems not to be as strongly regulated considering the resent human babies?
    • The babies were not approved (for want of a better word) so were done outside of the regulatory system. It does pose questions on their checks and balances though. It may take a while, but I will see what I can dig up. I can add some info on crops from Genetically modified food in Asia#China, but may struggle to find info on research. As to the US bias, they are the major pusher of the technology (in crops anyway) so it is mainly focused on them. I tried to keep the regulation as a contrast between Europe and the USA as they are probably the most conflicting in terms of regulations. If that isn't apparent then I will look at rewording it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I am in two minds about this. I understand the world view concern, but the fact is most sources focuses on the US vs EU conflict. Also as far as I can tell most other countries seem to base their regulations from those ones. The He controversy is still too new to really get a gauge on regulation wise, but may in the future provide some content suitable for here. We don't mention the ethics or regulation of human genetic engineering, because until now (well really Lulu and Nana still need better confirmation) it has always been the realm of sci fi. I also find this whole regulatory issues very dry and don't really want to add too much on regulatory agencies and legislation to this page (Regulation of genetic engineering is better suited to that). I could add the table I made at Genetic engineering here, but I feel I repeat that section too much already. I am going to leave this for now. Let me know if it is an issue that needs resolving and I will come back to it later. AIRcorn (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Other ethical issues – the issues listed in the previous sentence are not (at least not all of them) ethical. I suggest to remove the "other".

Controversy sectionEdit

  • You state that there is no scientific evidence for negative impact on human health. But to be fair, there is evidence for other (e.g., environmental) concerns, such as gene flow. I think this evidence, especially regarding gene flow to other species, should be mentioned, with examples.
    • Most of that subject matter deals with Genetically modified crops, so I wonder if that would be a better question when that article is under GA review considering how the network of articles/daughter articles is set up? This one gets tricky because a lot of those "concerns" are WP:UNDUE or even WP:FRINGE depending on what's being asked. There have been talk page discussions about things like that in the past and this explains some of that. For your example, the risks of gene flow are basically no different between GMO or traditional breeding in the crop world at least (e.g., it doesn't matter whether herbicide tolerance came from traditional breeding or genetic engineering).
This sort of stuff has basically been set aside in the last paragraph of this article (and other articles) including some environmental things to "describe the controversy". I guess I'm not sure how much more could really be included at this broad overview article yet without first fleshing out more in the daughter/granddaughter articles before assessing the WP:SUMMARY here. Considering the potential legwork needed, maybe that's more relevant of the comprehensive scope for an FA instead of GA? Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Please consider all my points as mere suggestions for further improvement. Not everything is required for reaching GA, including this point. My personal goal is not to pass it as GA as fast as possible, but to help improving the article as much as possible. Please feel free to skip everything you feel unreasonable. But if you are planning to get the article to FAC at some point, I have the feeling that the "Controversy" section is the weakest part of the article, and should ideally be improved before submitting to FAC. My suggestion above was one, probably ill-conceived, attempt to get the section into the right direction. This controversy is for sure of high relevance (maybe not so much for science, but for society in general), and in my opinion could be fleshed out without violating Summary style. I'm really not sure what to do precisely. It somehow remains very general and vague, without really getting to the points. A clear structure is also difficult to spot (most of the section is about food, with some bits in-between about other concerns). Maybe try to discuss concerns point by point. One more point that you may want to consider:
  • Although doubts have been raised,[315] most studies have found growing GM crops to be beneficial to farmers.[316][317][318] – "beneficial" is quite vague here. Using GM crops is arguably not beneficial for the farmer's health, as GM crops come in a package with pesticides. On the other hand, few would disagree that GM crops would be beneficial to the farmers as they increase yield. So why mention the farmers at all in the introductory paragraph? In my feeling the whole discussion revolves more around environmental impact and consumers health. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
No worries, I'm just feeling out what you were looking for along with some of the logistics of handling some of these topics in various depths. I'm mostly just trying to help wade through of the reasoning and history for the layout of this article and how it fits with the other articles. I'm not sure if this would be nominated for FA, but until it would be prepped for FA-like depth, I'd really only expect the gene flow topic to have a sentence or two at most on gene flow (currently mentioned in the controversy section) and more in the daughter articles. A bit more history on the controversy section is that it is meant to be vague as it gives brief mention of largely fringe viewpoints without going into depth or undue weight of those viewpoints while leaving more for Genetically modified food controversies. What you're seeing was an intent to balance describing the controversy with other policy, so while tweaking could be done, some vagueness was intended too.
For the sentence you mentioned, beneficial includes different aspects like financial, health, etc. in the cited sources. The health one is a big factor because the GM crops either have plant-produced insecticides or herbicide tolerance. The former replaces foliar insecticides, which are often a health risk for farmers, with one farmers generally don't have to interact with that also doesn't affect human health. The latter for herbicides currently uses a much less toxic herbicide that still gets sprayed like any other pesticide, but that's replacing older more toxic herbicides. Your comments are reminding me of a few areas here that could be strengthened, so I'll see if I can do some tweaks in this area in the next day or two to tackle some vague wording. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I tried to streamline the controversy section a bit. It's going to be a sort of catchall either way, so if anyone else has ideas, it might be worth trying them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I undid one of your edits as I think it is important to mention the secondary pest concern. I will expand on it when I get time. I am not sure about removing the health introductory sentence either. From my understanding health is the major concern anti-GM groups focus on so deserves a bit more weight. I think it is important for the narrative that we outline what the concerns are before we dispel them. That is followed by the environment, which although it gets less mentioning in the media has more evidence in the reliable literature. My general thinking weight wise is two paragraphs on health (one covered by the arb wording), two on environment (one focusing on gene flow - which is probably the most significant), one paragraph covering the other issues (IP, religous etc) and one paragraph giving us an intro to the opposition (including the groups involved). AIRcorn (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
No worries. The secondary pest thing isn't really unique to GMOs per se (open a niche with resistant plants or other control methods, GM or not, and something can still fill it) and probably fits better under the crop section, but I'm ok with your current version as is in terms of the GA nom at least. No strong feelings on any of my edits in the section really.
For a bit more clarification, the introductory sentence removal was meant to cut down on redundancy since the health stuff was more or less covered by the arb language, but it was just my stab at trimming if it worked. I also added the Kniss source in terms of parity because the Gilbert source isn't peer-reviewed (i.e., written only by a science journalist as opposed to a statement by an actual weed scientist that is usually considered reliable when attributed). There's more to flesh out on the gene flow topic to make sure everything is WP:DUE when mentioned, but it's also not something I'd fuss over any more for the GA at least. I agree with you that I'd rather see the controversy stuff integrated into the article and remove the section (and maybe get rid of some headaches trying to work with that material), but that's probably something for another day after GA. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry it took a while to get down to here. While many of the agricultural issues are common to all farming (monocultures, pesticide use, etc), they are brought up a lot with regards to this technology. Maybe that paragraph needs to state that somewhere. I would love to move many of these specific concerns to the crop section, but the same could be said about the health paragraph (fish aside) and no one is going to touch that. Crops is mentioned as the major concern in the lead and intro of this section, so I don't think there are Due concerns giving it extra weight. I might include a sentence on containment of research GMOs somewhere to broaden the scope a bit if I can find a decent source. I actually misread your use of that parity source and see now it was for the preceding sentence. I still feel we need a stronger source to say that rates of weeds have not increased. I would be surprised if there was not a journal article on this.
As to the health info, my main problem is the constraints placed upon us by the GMORFC. It makes writing a flowing article a bit difficult (i.e. the regulatory sentence would fit in better above and there is no real lead in). In the end it is doable, and if we hadn't got closure on that I would not even be attempting this. A single paragraph could work, but it would need that one to be changed slightly. I think allergenicity needs to be mentioned as a concern, along with HGT to humans (although less so). Pusztai and Seralini could be something else that is linked (I think we did it well somewhere else). Obviously they need to be balanced with how much of a risk there actually is. I am of the opinion that not mentioning something due to unscientific concerns just makes the problem worse. Better to mention it and then explain the science. It does get a bit tricky for overview articles, but we all knew this was going to be a difficult section to get right. AIRcorn (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Part of my removals were just for streamlining with prejudice against fleshing those topics out if they fit better, so that all sounds pretty good. Allergenicity definitely can be pretty easily addressed in a WP:DUE fashion by mentioning that allergens are screened for as part of the regulatory process (i.e., adding a peanut allergen protein isn't going to get approved). For HGT, I’m still looking for good sources we can use here (I usually deal with the primary literature on this subject), but here’s a recent example of a primary source at least I have watch listed that's at least better quality in a parity sense. There are some older reviews that basically say HGT is not a significant risk to human or environmental health either. I’d still have to think about how to tackle this one too (maybe next week when I’m not on mobile). I don’t see this as something that would necessarily hinder the GA process and could be dealt with at a later time, so there doesn’t need to be a rush on this, but there’s also the now is as good as time as any aspect too. I'm getting more drive to really dig into developing this topic again, so I'd be willing to help out in either case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I suppose it depends how deep down the rabbit hole we go. There is the Brazilian nut and the pea which were self regulated to a degree. Plus you have the option of potentially removing allergens through GE. I added a source saying they are tested for toxicity and allerginicity. HGT to humans is overstated by many so not sure we need to give it more than a passing mention. Of the two studies often cited one is misunderstood and the other would be interpreted as background by most researchers. I added the older source you mentioned, if a newer one comes up we can replace it. I think we cover gene flow to other similar (or wild-type) species adequately now, but feel free to make some adjustments. Overall I am pretty happy with our coverage of crops, although I might look for some non-food controversies. AIRcorn (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The controversy sections are the biggest headache in all these articles. They take up most of the talk page discussions and have burnt out (sometimes unwillingly) many editors. I agree it is the weakest section here, and it is likely to remain so no matter what we do as there are so many different opinions on the topic of GMO safety and what is due weight. I think it is best to keep this as general as possible and not get too tied down in the arguments and counter arguments. We have Genetically modified food controversies for that. If it was completely up to me I would get rid of the controversy section altogether and incorporate it into other sections, but there are probably fair points to keep it in given the feelings and coverage of this issue.
I feel we cover gene flow well enough, I could potentially explain the Mexican maize example as it is probably the most well known. I should probably do the Monarch Butterflies for the same reason too.
Yeah I wasn't sure where to put the farmer info as it is often disputed as to whether there is any actual benefit to them from growing GM crops. It does look out of place; I will move it to the crop section where it should fit in better.
Personally I am not interested in getting these articles to FA level. I feel the amount of fine-tuning needed is not the most efficient use of my time. I could probably get half a dozen of these articles to GA standard in the time it takes to get one to FA.
Anyway, thanks for your patience, this section could take a while to get acceptable to everyone. AIRcorn (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Forgotten commentsEdit

My apologies, I forgot two:

  • I would strongly recommend to replace all blog (and similar) sources with the respective scientific paper, or to at least cite both.
    • Went through the cites (there are a lot) and edited some and replaced others. Some could be better, but I feel it meets the Good Standard. If you have any in particulr you are concerned about I can focus on those. AIRcorn (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • in the form of delta endotoxin genes known as cry proteins. – does not fit together (genes are genes, proteins are proteins). What are cry proteins, can this be linked? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Cry proteins are delta endotoxins (they link to the same page). Reworded to make clearer. AIRcorn (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Would it make sense to include international regulations in the "regulations" section also (i.e, the Cartagena Protocol)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Added to the start, plus Asilomar. AIRcorn (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. This was exactly what I was looking for in a review. I will work through these with KofA over the next few days. AIRcorn (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add at this point. Your changes all look good from what I see. The controversy addition looks good too (notable opinions put in the right place etc.). Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I think you did an amazing job, the whole thing is much better now, including the "controversy" section. Happy to pass the well-deserved GA. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Congrats on GAEdit

Congrats and appreciation to all the editors who raised this page to a GA! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Genetically modified organism" page.