Esta es una solicitud de comentarios , realizada en virtud de sanciones discrecionales emitidas por el Comité de Arbitraje , sobre cómo indicar las opiniones científicas sobre la seguridad de los cultivos genéticamente modificados para el consumo humano. The Wordsmith Háblame 14:13, 7 de junio de 2016 (UTC)
Saltar a la sección de comentarios.
Las siguientes páginas se ven afectadas por este RfC:
Cada una de estas páginas tiene un lenguaje similar al siguiente: Existe un acuerdo científico general de que los alimentos que se comercializan derivados de cultivos transgénicos no representan un riesgo mayor para la salud humana que los alimentos convencionales, pero deben analizarse caso por caso.
Los editores en general no están satisfechos con esta redacción, pero no están de acuerdo sobre cómo revisarla. Esta solicitud de comentarios presenta opciones de contenido para reemplazar esa redacción y tiene como objetivo determinar el consenso de la comunidad al respecto.
En concreto, se le pide que aborde dos cuestiones :
1. Con base en las políticas, directrices y conceptos relacionados con el consenso científico , enumerados a continuación, ¿la preponderancia de fuentes confiables (ver citas en las propuestas enumeradas) indica que existe un consenso científico sobre la seguridad de los alimentos genéticamente modificados con respecto a la salud humana?
2. ¿Se debe cambiar el lenguaje actual y qué propuesta(s) de contenido, si las hay, representan mejor la respuesta a la pregunta 1 para su inclusión en los artículos enumerados anteriormente?
En virtud de la autoridad otorgada a los Administradores No Involucrados y de los términos del caso GMO del Comité de Arbitraje , y las Sanciones Discrecionales Estándar autorizadas por ese caso , se imponen los siguientes límites al debate:
Existe un consenso científico [1] [2] [3] [4] de que los alimentos actualmente disponibles derivados de cultivos transgénicos no plantean un riesgo mayor para la salud humana que los alimentos convencionales, [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] pero que cada alimento transgénico debe probarse caso por caso antes de su introducción. [10] [11] [12] No obstante, los miembros del público tienen muchas menos probabilidades que los científicos de percibir los alimentos transgénicos como seguros. [13] [14] [15] [16] El estatus legal y regulatorio de los alimentos transgénicos varía según el país, ya que algunas naciones los prohíben o restringen, y otras los permiten con grados de regulación muy diferentes. [17] [18] [19] [20]
La evaluación de la seguridad de los alimentos transgénicos se basa en la ciencia de la equivalencia sustancial , que compara los alimentos transgénicos con alimentos tradicionales similares que han demostrado ser seguros para comer a lo largo del tiempo. [1] [2] En los países con regulaciones de alimentos transgénicos, [3] la aprobación por parte de las agencias reguladoras nacionales significa que un alimento transgénico se considera tan seguro para comer como un alimento convencional comparable. [4] [5] Además, hasta la fecha no hay evidencia de daños causados por comer alimentos transgénicos; [5] por ejemplo, una revisión de 2013 de 1.783 artículos científicos sobre la seguridad de los cultivos transgénicos concluyó que "la investigación realizada hasta ahora no ha detectado ningún peligro significativo directamente relacionado con el uso de cultivos transgénicos". [6] No obstante, existe una importante desconfianza pública hacia los alimentos transgénicos y la ciencia que los respalda. [7] [8]
La comunidad científica tiene opiniones diversas sobre los OGM. [1]
Varias organizaciones científicas estadounidenses importantes ( Asociación Médica Estadounidense , [1] AAAS , [2] Consejo Nacional de Investigación [3] ) y otras organizaciones científicas internacionales han adoptado los OGM y afirman que son tan seguros para el consumo humano como los alimentos derivados de la cría convencional y, por lo tanto, no deberían requerir pruebas o etiquetado especiales si son sustancialmente equivalentes al producto convencional. [4] Pero otras organizaciones científicas importantes no están de acuerdo (por ejemplo, Asociación Médica Británica , [5] Sociedad Real de Canadá , [6] [7] Salud Pública de Australia [8] ), afirmando que los OGM necesitan estudios a mediano y largo plazo [9] o que las evaluaciones regulatorias de seguridad actuales son insuficientes. [10] Los artículos de revisión científica sobre la seguridad de los alimentos transgénicos se dividen entre los que siguen el enfoque estadounidense de asumir que los OGM son generalmente reconocidos como seguros y los que son más escépticos. [11] [12] Numerosos países, como los de la UE, utilizan un enfoque diferente al de EE. UU., [13] siguiendo el Principio de Precaución al requerir pruebas y/o etiquetado adicionales según el Protocolo de Cartagena sobre Seguridad de la Biotecnología . [14] Algunos países prohíben por completo las importaciones y/o la producción de alimentos transgénicos. [14] [15] Las organizaciones internacionales ( OMS [16] y FAO de la ONU [9] ) afirman que los alimentos transgénicos que han sido aprobados son seguros para comer y que no han surgido riesgos significativos para la salud a partir de ellos. [17] (Véase también [18] ).
Existe un consenso científico [1] [2] [3] de que los alimentos actualmente disponibles derivados de cultivos transgénicos no plantean un riesgo mayor para la salud humana que los alimentos convencionales. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Existen beneficios para los agricultores, el medio ambiente y los consumidores, [9] [10] [11] y hay evidencia de daños causados por los retrasos en la adopción de cultivos modificados genéticamente. [12] Sin embargo, los científicos también dicen que puede ser difícil evaluar los posibles efectos no deseados, y que cada alimento transgénico debe probarse caso por caso antes de su introducción. [2] [13] [14] [15] No obstante, los miembros del público tienen muchas menos probabilidades que los científicos de percibir los alimentos transgénicos como seguros. [16] [17] [18] [19] El estatus legal y regulatorio de los alimentos transgénicos varía según el país, ya que algunas naciones los prohíben o restringen, y otras los permiten con grados de regulación muy diferentes. [20] [21] [22] [23]
Los alimentos actualmente disponibles derivados de cultivos transgénicos no representan un riesgo mayor para la salud humana que los alimentos convencionales, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] y los alimentos transgénicos se prueban caso por caso antes de su introducción. [6] [7] [8] No obstante, a pesar de este consenso científico sobre la seguridad, [9] [10] [11] [12] los miembros del público tienen muchas menos probabilidades que los científicos de percibir los alimentos transgénicos como seguros. [13] [14] [15] [16] El estatus legal y regulatorio de los alimentos transgénicos varía según el país: algunas naciones los prohíben o restringen, y otras los permiten con grados de regulación muy diferentes. [17] [18] [19] [20]
Según la Organización Mundial de la Salud , "[d]iferentes organismos modificados genéticamente incluyen genes diferentes insertados de distintas maneras. Esto significa que los alimentos modificados genéticamente y su seguridad deben evaluarse caso por caso y que no es posible hacer declaraciones generales sobre la seguridad de todos los alimentos modificados genéticamente". La OMS añade que no se ha demostrado que el consumo de alimentos modificados genéticamente tenga efectos sobre la salud humana y que los alimentos modificados genéticamente que se comercializan actualmente "han superado las evaluaciones de seguridad y no es probable que presenten riesgos para la salud humana". [1]
No se ha demostrado que los alimentos transgénicos supongan un riesgo significativo [1], pero la OMS , de acuerdo con la mayoría de los estudios científicos [2], recomienda que se examine caso por caso la introducción de productos adicionales. [3] La población en general tiene más dudas que los científicos sobre la seguridad de los OGM, según un estudio de Pew . [4]
Material modificado el 26 de junio de 2016
Existe un consenso científico [1] de que los alimentos actualmente disponibles derivados de cultivos transgénicos no representan un riesgo mayor para la salud humana que los alimentos convencionales (Refs per #1) , pero que cada alimento transgénico debe probarse caso por caso antes de su introducción. (Refs per #1) Sin embargo,losmiembros del público en general tienen mayores dudas sobre las cuestiones de seguridad alimentaria relacionadas con los OGM. (Refs per #1) Diferentes países tienen diferentes reglas sobre dichos alimentos y su distribución. (Refs per #1)
La mayoría de los estudios científicos (citas [1][2][3][4] por propuesta 1) afirman que los alimentos actualmente disponibles derivados de cultivos transgénicos no representan un riesgo mayor para la salud humana que los alimentos convencionales (citas [5][6][7][8][9] por propuesta 1), pero que cada alimento transgénico debe probarse caso por caso antes de su introducción (citas [10][11][12] por propuesta 1) . No obstante, la ciencia sobre los efectos de los OGM en la salud no está completamente resuelta dentro de la comunidad científica (Krimsky 2015, Bawa y Anilakumar 2013 [1] ) y los miembros del público tienen muchas menos probabilidades que los científicos de percibir los alimentos transgénicos como seguros (citas [13][14][15][16] por propuesta 1). El estatus legal y regulatorio de los alimentos transgénicos varía según el país: algunas naciones los prohíben o restringen, y otras los permiten con grados de regulación muy diferentes. (cita [17][18][19][20] según la propuesta 1)
Los alimentos disponibles actualmente derivados de cultivos transgénicos no plantean un riesgo mayor para la salud humana que los alimentos convencionales. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Para tener en cuenta la posibilidad de efectos no deseados, cada variedad modificada debe probarse caso por caso antes de su introducción. [7] [9] [10] [11] En algunos casos, los cultivos modificados tienen ventajas para la salud y la seguridad con respecto a las formas no modificadas. [12] [13] No obstante, los miembros del público tienen muchas menos probabilidades que los científicos de percibir los alimentos transgénicos como seguros. [14] [15] [16] [17] El estatus legal y regulatorio de los alimentos transgénicos varía según el país: algunas naciones los prohíben o restringen, y otras los permiten con grados de regulación muy diferentes. [18] [19] [20] [21]
La mayoría de los estudios científicos concluyen [1] [2] [3] [4] que los alimentos derivados de cultivos genéticamente modificados no suponen un riesgo mayor que los alimentos convencionales, [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] pero que deberían analizarse caso por caso antes de introducirlos. [10] [11] [12] Sin embargo, algunos científicos y organizaciones científicas importantes sostienen que se necesitan más estudios para resolver por completo la cuestión. [13] Es menos probable que los miembros del público perciban los alimentos genéticamente modificados como seguros. [14] [15] [16] Los alimentos genéticamente modificados están regulados de forma diferente en los distintos países. [17] [18] [19] [20]
La mayoría de los estudios científicos concluyen [1] [2] [3] [4] que los alimentos derivados de cultivos genéticamente modificados no suponen un riesgo mayor que los alimentos convencionales, [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] pero que deberían analizarse caso por caso antes de introducirlos. [10] [11] [12] Sin embargo, estudios posteriores pueden revelar más sobre la seguridad de los alimentos genéticamente modificados, en particular en lo que respecta a sus efectos a largo plazo. [13] Es menos probable que los miembros del público perciban los alimentos genéticamente modificados como seguros. [14] [15] [16] Los alimentos genéticamente modificados están regulados de forma diferente en los distintos países. [17] [18] [19] [20]
Para completar: ninguna de las anteriores, se prefiere el idioma existente.
Para completar el RFC: reemplace con nada, haga una simplificación o elimine la línea existente si realmente no es buena, es decir, si carece de WP:CONSENSUS sobre el contenido o la redacción apropiados o incluso la presencia.
El consenso científico [1] [2] [3] [4] sostiene que, a partir de 2016, los alimentos disponibles derivados de cultivos transgénicos no representan un riesgo mayor para la salud humana que los alimentos convencionales, [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] pero que cada alimento transgénico debe probarse individualmente antes de su introducción. [10] [11] [12] Sin embargo, el público en general tiene menos confianza en la seguridad de los alimentos transgénicos. [13] [14] [15] [16] El estatus legal y regulatorio de los alimentos transgénicos varía según la jurisdicción, y va desde la venta sin restricciones hasta prohibiciones totales. [17] [18] [19] [20]
El consenso científico [1] [2] [3] [4] sostiene que, a partir de 2016, los alimentos disponibles derivados de cultivos transgénicos no representan un riesgo mayor para la salud humana que los alimentos convencionales, [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] pero que cada alimento transgénico debe probarse individualmente antes de su introducción. [10] [11] [12] Sin embargo, el público en general ha expresado su preocupación por la seguridad de los alimentos transgénicos. [13] [14] [15] [16] El estado legal y regulatorio de los alimentos transgénicos varía según la jurisdicción, desde la venta sin restricciones hasta prohibiciones totales. [17] [18] [19] [20]
El consenso científico actual es que los cultivos transgénicos actuales son idénticos a sus homólogos convencionales en lo que respecta a su seguridad para el consumo humano, y que el acto de modificar los genomas de los cultivos a través de la ingeniería genética no introduce ningún peligro adicional para la salud que no exista en los métodos de cultivo convencionales.[citas] No obstante, a pesar de este consenso científico sobre la seguridad,[citas] la percepción de que los cultivos transgénicos plantean riesgos para la salud se ha vuelto frecuente entre algunos miembros del público.[citas] El estatus legal y regulatorio de los alimentos transgénicos varía según la jurisdicción, desde la venta sin restricciones hasta prohibiciones totales.[citas]
A partir de junio de 2016 [update], el consenso científico es que los cultivos transgénicos actuales son idénticos a sus contrapartes convencionales en lo que respecta a su seguridad para el consumo humano, y que el acto de modificar los genomas de los cultivos a través de la ingeniería genética no introduce ningún peligro adicional para la salud que no existe en los métodos de cultivo convencionales. [citas] A pesar de este consenso científico sobre la seguridad, [citas] la percepción de que los cultivos transgénicos plantean riesgos para la salud se ha vuelto frecuente entre algunos miembros del público. [citas] El estado legal y reglamentario de los alimentos transgénicos varía según la jurisdicción, desde la venta sin restricciones hasta prohibiciones totales. [citas]
Varias organizaciones científicas estadounidenses importantes ( Asociación Médica Estadounidense , [1] AAAS , [2] Consejo Nacional de Investigación [3] ) y otras organizaciones científicas internacionaleshan adoptado los OGM yafirman que son tan seguros para el consumo humano como los alimentos derivados de la cría convencional y, por lo tanto, no deberían requerir pruebas o etiquetado especiales sisonsustancialmente equivalentes al producto convencional. [4]Perootras organizaciones científicas importantesno están de acuerdo(por ejemplo, Asociación Médica Británica , [ 5] Sociedad Real de Canadá , [6] [7] Salud Pública de Australia [8] ),afirmandoque los OGM necesitan estudios a mediano y largo plazo [9] o que las evaluaciones regulatorias de seguridad actuales son insuficientes. [10] Algunas revisiones científicas de la seguridad de los alimentos transgénicos concluyen que los OGM son generalmente reconocidos como seguros [11] [12] [13] . Otros artículos de revisión científica no están de acuerdo. [14] [15] [16] [17]Los artículos de revisión científica sobre la seguridad de los alimentos transgénicos se dividen entre los que siguen el enfoque estadounidense de asumir que los OGM songeneralmente reconocidos como segurosy los que son más escépticos.Numerosos países, como los de la UE, utilizan un enfoque diferente al de EE. UU.[18],siguiendo elPrincipio de Precauciónal exigir pruebas y/o etiquetado adicionales según elProtocolo de Cartagena sobre Seguridad de la Biotecnología.[19]Algunos países prohíben por completo las importaciones y/o la producción de alimentos transgénicos.[19][20]Las organizaciones internacionales (OMS[21]y laFAOde la ONU[9]) afirman que los alimentos transgénicos que han sido aprobados son seguros para comer y que no han surgido riesgos significativos para la salud a partir de ellos.[22](Véase también .)
Algunos artículos de revisión científica sobre la seguridad de los alimentos transgénicos concluyen que los OGM no son seguros, mientras que otros concluyen que son generalmente reconocidos como seguros . [1] [2] Numerosos países, como los de la UE, siguen el principio de precaución y requieren pruebas y/o etiquetado de los OGM según el Protocolo de Cartagena sobre Seguridad de la Biotecnología . [3] [4] Algunos países prohíben por completo las importaciones y/o la producción de alimentos transgénicos. [4] [5] La OMS [6] y la FAO [7] afirman que los alimentos transgénicos que han sido aprobados son seguros para comer [8] , pero otras organizaciones científicas importantes no están de acuerdo (por ejemplo, la Asociación Médica Británica , [9] la Sociedad Real de Canadá , [10] [11] Public Health Australia [12] ), afirmando que los OGM necesitan estudios a medio y largo plazo [7] o que las evaluaciones regulatorias de seguridad actuales son insuficientes. [13]
El consenso científico a junio de 2016 [update]sostiene que el consumo humano de alimentos transgénicos no conlleva ningún riesgo adicional para la seguridad. [1] [2] [3] [4] El público en general tiene menos confianza en la seguridad de los alimentos transgénicos. [5] [6] [7] El estatus legal y regulatorio de los alimentos transgénicos varía según la jurisdicción, desde la venta sin restricciones hasta prohibiciones totales. [8] [9]
Añade nuevas propuestas a continuación.
Regresar a la Introducción.
Sí , hay múltiples fuentes confiables, escritas por autoridades sin agendas industriales, sin restricciones geográficas, que afirman textualmente que existe "un consenso científico" o "un amplio consenso científico" (no dicen simplemente "opinión mayoritaria"). Wikipedia debería decirlo claramente, sin recurrir a SYNTH, OR o a la imposición de puntos de vista.
He revisado todas las fuentes mencionadas aquí por otros editores, como disidentes del consenso científico, con argumentos de que no deberíamos decir "consenso científico". En todos los casos, las fuentes confiables de la Propuesta 1 han tenido en cuenta estas fuentes anteriores en sus análisis y, no obstante, han concluido que existe, textualmente, un "consenso científico". Mostrar fuentes disidentes no refuta la existencia del consenso y no podemos hacer que desaparezca, ni siquiera como un compromiso editorial, porque hacerlo sería una investigación original. Y la Dra. Pamela Ronald (cita n.° 3 en la Propuesta 1) es una experta reconocida y profesora universitaria, que no trabaja para la industria, y las fuentes secundarias citan su integridad científica. -- Tryptofish ( discusión ) 19:58, 5 de julio de 2016 (UTC)
Domingo (2016) [10] ahora está de acuerdo con el consenso. -- Tryptofish ( discusión ) 18:54 6 jul 2016 (UTC)
Existe un consenso científico, propuesta 1. En resumen, las fuentes demuestran adecuadamente el consenso científico de acuerdo con la política de Wikipedia, y se le da el peso apropiado al consenso científico y a las opiniones marginales en contra en la propuesta 1. La propuesta 6 es similar, pero los efectos ambientales están fuera del alcance de esta RfC y se tratan por separado en los artículos pertinentes. Las propuestas restantes o la falta de cambios son inaceptables ya que evitan el lenguaje del consenso científico para usar terminología que no está en las fuentes (por ejemplo, acuerdo científico general) y exageran las opiniones científicas no convencionales de que existe un cuestionamiento científico legítimo del consenso en violación de las políticas y pautas anteriores.
El punto de la disputa es si existe un consenso científico sobre la seguridad de consumir alimentos transgénicos. La política de WP:RS/AC es clara en cuanto a que necesitamos fuentes que lo declaren explícitamente para tener ese contenido. En la propuesta 1, las citas 1, 2 y 3, así como Yang en la cita 4, declaran explícitamente un consenso científico (no solo un acuerdo científico). Todos son artículos de revisión de WP:INDEPENDENT WP:MEDRS o declaraciones de organismos científicos que cumplen los requisitos de RS/AC. Estas fuentes declaran directamente que esto representa las conclusiones de otras organizaciones científicas importantes como la OMS , la AAAS y la NAS . Eso ya es suficiente para decir que hay un consenso de las fuentes (no solo en los EE. UU.) sin ninguna interpretación por parte de nosotros, los editores.
Para consolidar esto desde una perspectiva de WP:WEIGHT , muchas citas son implícitas sobre el lenguaje de consenso al proporcionar la misma idea utilizando el mismo lenguaje sobre la falta de aumento del riesgo y la falta de registros de daños en los alimentos comercializados actualmente debido a que son transgénicos. Las citas 5 a 20 son solo pequeñas muestras de lo que podemos extraer como fuente debido al amplio consenso científico. La cita de la Asociación Estadounidense para el Avance de la Ciencia resume este apoyo implícito al término de consenso diciendo que la Unión Europea, al analizar la investigación de más de 500 grupos de investigación independientes , dice que los OGM no son más riesgosos en términos de seguridad que la cría convencional, al tiempo que dice: "La Organización Mundial de la Salud, la Asociación Médica Estadounidense, la Academia Nacional de Ciencias de los EE. UU., la Royal Society británica y todas las demás organizaciones respetadas que han examinado la evidencia han llegado a la misma conclusión...". Yang cita esto específicamente como parte del consenso científico. Tenga en cuenta que estas no son declaraciones exclusivas de los EE. UU .
Esa última frase de la AAAS está afirmando implícitamente que existe un consenso científico. En todas las organizaciones respetables . Recuerde que el consenso científico no implica unanimidad. Aún puede haber un consenso científico cuando algunas personas no están de acuerdo. Esas personas o grupos caen en lo que llamamos puntos de vista WP:FRINGE , donde la comunidad científica en general no considera que los puntos de vista marginales sean científicamente válidos. Los artículos aislados a menudo pasan la revisión por pares y pueden ser seleccionados por los contrarios incluso cuando la comunidad científica no los toma en serio. La negación del cambio climático es un gran ejemplo en el que las fuentes y las organizaciones intentan afirmar que el estado de la literatura es indeciso y seleccionan cuidadosamente los estudios descartados por el consenso científico. [11][12] Decir que los estudios citados en la RfC cuestionan este consenso requeriría eliminar el lenguaje de consenso en otros artículos como el cambio climático.
En este punto, las revisiones individuales que adoptan una posición marginal contra el consenso no pueden usarse para reemplazar el lenguaje de consenso utilizado por fuentes de nivel superior como la AAAS, la OMS, la FAO, etc. Dejan en claro que cualquier debate que aún esté en curso relacionado con la seguridad ahora está al margen de la ciencia en lugar de ser considerado seriamente por la comunidad científica. Domingo es citado por Yang, pero aún así dice que hay un consenso. La fuente de Krimsky también en 4, escrita por un no experto en el campo, está publicada en una revista de nivel demasiado bajo para sugerir un cambio de 180 grados en el consenso científico, y Krimsky está en el consejo editorial de la revista. Además, Krimsky respalda las fuentes en el caso Seralini , que se describen como pseudocientíficas. Dado que Krimsky está citando pseudociencia para decir que no hay un consenso científico, eso hace que decir que no hay un consenso científico u ofuscar que los científicos digan que hay un consenso entre en conflicto con la política de WP:PSCI .
También tenemos fuentes que dan el peso apropiado a estas opiniones marginales (aunque las fuentes confiables también suelen optar por no comentar en absoluto sobre las opiniones marginales). La cita 1 analiza cuestiones relacionadas con los métodos estadísticos y el diseño experimental en estudios que intentan afirmar que existen efectos nocivos, y que los medios de comunicación y los grupos anti-OGM intentan hacer publicidad de estos estudios. Yang en la cita 4 también cubre estos sentimientos. Panchin en la cita 5 cubre uno de los fallos estadísticos ( falsos positivos ) en estudios específicos, al tiempo que señala problemas en el pequeño conjunto de literatura que afirma efectos perjudiciales en su conjunto. Las citas 13 y 14 también analizan cómo el público en general está incorrectamente fuera de línea con lo que los científicos piensan sobre el tema, de ahí el lenguaje "No obstante". Kingofaces43 ( discusión ) 00:24, 26 de junio de 2016 (UTC)
Apoyo la Propuesta 1 y me opongo a las demás por diversas razones. De hecho, existe un consenso científico de que los alimentos transgénicos no son menos seguros que los alimentos no transgénicos. Las opiniones de los científicos sobre cualquier tema no son monolíticas y, si bien la percepción pública ha dado mucho (indebido) peso a las opiniones de los pocos científicos que se oponen a esta posición, el consenso no lo determina el bando que habla más alto, sino el bando que tiene la preponderancia de la evidencia y las teorías más útiles. Los argumentos presentados por los oponentes más informados de los alimentos transgénicos son todos argumentos que se aplican por igual a los alimentos no transgénicos, con la única salvedad de que hemos tenido alimentos no transgénicos durante el tiempo suficiente como para haber realizado estudios a largo plazo sobre sus efectos. Sin embargo, este hecho es abordado y reconocido por la opinión de consenso. Esto no cambia el hecho de que nosotros (la humanidad) no hemos descubierto hasta ahora ningún mecanismo exclusivo de los alimentos transgénicos por el cual puedan causar daño que no haya sido completamente desacreditado (por ejemplo, las afirmaciones de que el material genético de los alimentos transgénicos podría causar mutaciones importantes en quienes los consumen). MjolnirPants Cuéntamelo todo. 18:42, 6 de junio de 2016 (UTC)
Interesante gama de opciones. Yo diría que la opción 5 es la más clara y me parece sustancialmente equivalente a la opción 1, que es la más precisa porque no exagera el alcance de las reservas de los organismos científicos (pista: decir que el seguimiento a largo plazo es una buena idea no es lo mismo que decir que existe un nivel de riesgo mínimamente plausible; además, la BMA es, ante todo, un sindicato y sus opiniones se basan en los votos de un grupo de ex estudiantes de medicina; en realidad, no es un organismo científico del tipo de la Royal Society of Canada). Guy ( ¡Ayuda! ) 21:41, 6 de junio de 2016 (UTC)
Overall I prefer #16 or 17 with #1 as second choice, with #9, 18 & 19 as other options. Oppose the others.
InsertCleverPhraseHere 00:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
|}
Words: 785The first question of this RfC asks if "the preponderance of reliable sources indicate that there is a scientific consensus", in conflict with WP:RS/AC: "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors". Also note this RfC is not about finding concise language, but language that is supported by the sources.
Proposition 1 - problems with the three sources used for "scientific consensus" language (or, why SYNTH is disallowed)
Proposition 1 ignores equally strong sources with opposite conclusions:
Support Proposals:
Support #1 with 2nd phrase removed
@Montanabw. It's not that "the science on health effects of GMOs is not resolved within the scientific community". It is the fact that both "natural" and GMO foods may have positive and negative effects on the human health (this is fact, this is proven), and these effects are under scientific study - there are lots of publications on the subject. I agree that it should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
A number of editors have stated the WP:RS shows a "scientific consensus" on GMO safety and support proposals that give NO VOICE to the abundant high quality RS of scientists that shows a different perspective (asserting: assessment is insufficient, GMOs create unique concerns, long term studies are necessary). We must give due proportion to voices that disagree.
It's true that a number of major American orgs have made strong assertions about GM safety (see Proposal 4 and this[1] RS). Sources claiming consensus do not agree on language: See Tsavage's comments.
The scientific reviews articles of GMO food safety do not support a "scientific consensus". (See Krimsky.[2]) Under WP:MEDRS, scientific review articles are the highest most reliable sources. Even if you disregard Krimsky's credentials for toxicology, one need only look at the reviews he refers to:
GMO's as Generally recognized as safe:
Unclear:
Clear concerns about GM studies noted:
Ronald is cited in Prop. 1 as a review, but it is not a toxicology review, and she is a pro-GMO advocate.
See This discussion.
Many editors seem troubled why Proposal 4 speaks of the difference in the American vs. EU approaches to regulating GMO food safety. That is because it is all over the RS, including the scientific literature, such as Domingo[1]. Emily Marden's[2] and Rebecca Bratspies'[3] work on this is exceptional. See also this discussion with more RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: In answer to your question, why do proposals and our articles say: "Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe"? Easy. This is the standard PR. If scientists are all in agreement that GMO's are so safe, then there is a problem: How can one explain that 64 countries require labeling, that 93% of Americans want GMOs labelled, or that many countries have various bans [15], restrictions and heavy regulation of GMOs [see Proposal 4]? Although ordinary readers won't find such facts in our articles (they are well-hidden), readers may have come across them elsewhere and be confused about why a country might ban GMOs, if GMOs are indeed so safe. The answer: Imply that any concern about GMO safety is from extremists [16] and people who don't understand the science. [17]. And, no, I do not support such arrogance in our articles. I wrote Proposal 4 and stand behind it. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
--David Tornheim (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
It can have that meaning, but not necessarily:
Consensus typically has an element that suggests the whole is completely involved in the decision and their views have been accommodated into the decision and all dissent considered and addressed.
Support proposal 1
Editors are being asked to evaluate many sources in this proposal and they each serve an important purpose in its structure. However, for me the strongest and clearest has been the 2012 statement from the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the publisher of the science journal and an organisation at the top of reliability when it comes to information on science).[20] The key phrasing being:
The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.
That is a pretty clear statement for "scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food". You could not ask for a better secondary source for the views of respected science organisations. The most recent documentation[21] on this issue comes from the National Academy of Sciences (publishers of PNAS) and further supports this consensus. It also handily sums up the views of 6 other organisations, including the AAAS, WHO, European Commission and FDA. This is probably a better source as it was published in 2016 and is more thorough.
The WHO statement in proposal 7 does not contradict proposal 1 and is in fact used as a reference for the case-by-case part sentence. Saying GM food currently on the market is as safe as the equivalent conventional food and that new GM food should be tested on a case-by-case basis is not mutually exclusive.
I was one of the editors that suggested the addition of the public perception, and as that has been queried I will give my justification. There is a big difference between the public view and the scientific view when it comes to the safety of GM food.[22] I feel that these should be presented together as the public views drive the articulation of the scientific ones and vice versa. If the two views were aligned we would not need to point to the scientific one so obviously and there would be much less conflict in these articles. As said by Capeo above, most decent articles which mention the scientific viewpoint should also mention the contradicting public one.
I oppose the other statements for much the same reasons as Tryptofish and others above. I oppose proposal 7 as it focuses too much on a single source, one that is already neatly summarised and referenced in proposal 1. We are looking for a succinct summary statement of the scientific and other views on GM safety and presenting a quote does not do this.
Also scientific consensus does not mean scientific unanimity, otherwise there would never be a scientific consensus on anything. That some scientists disagree with this consensus does not negate it. It should also be noted that most dissenting scientists (including Domingo) do not say that GM food is unsafe, but that it needs more testing before it can be said to be safe. AIRcorn (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposals 8 through 11 have been added since I last commented. I don't find eight very clear and it places too much emphasis on the WHO. Proposal 9 is pretty much the same as proposal 1 so I have no problem with it although I would prefer the sources to be on the articles page as that is where readers would expect to find them. Proposal 10 has weighting problems as it gives Krimsky, Bawa and Anilakumar the same weight as the NAS and other institutes I mentioned above. I do like 11 and even thought about proposing something similar during the development phase. Personally I feel the strength of sources is strong enough to say this as fact (see WP:INTEXT), but giving the controversial nature of the issue here and in the general public it is probably best to attribute this statement to scientists. AIRcorn (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not addressing this as being more than an attempt to provide clear and accurate "boiler-plate" for various articles related to GMOs. Thus I regard clarity to the reader of Wikipedia as being essential. The use of "nonetheless" is, alas, argumentative, as I discuss below. Collect (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jbhunley:
@Collect: What do you think of simply striking "nonetheless" in Proposal #1. There is no need to use it as a connective and two simple declarative sentences are clear. So the wording would be:
There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Members of the public however are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.
The "however" I added can be struck, I just think it flows better but nothing is lost by its removal. Also, I believe that the over citation is just for purposes of discussion here and are not intended for the final statement but it is worth clairifying. JbhTalk 18:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a scientific consensus [1] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Members of the general public
appear tohave greater doubts about GMO related food safety issues. Different countries have different rules concerning such foods and their distribution.
References
JbhTalk 21:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
In general all of these suffer from citation overload. One or, at most two, good references should be selected for each point. A more in depth analysis of the references should be placed in a sub page or FAQ for readers who want more information. Prop #9 has an example of how this might be done.
Either of the above would be best. They are not overly complex and get the point across to the common reader. Both explicitly cite scientific consensus which is key to any statement chosen.
The above two are technically more accurate but seem to be more concerned with addressing conflict within the editing community rather than making a clear statement for the common reader who does not care about wiki-conflicts.
Given the state of the systemic reviews that have been published through 2015, notably Krimsky 2015, Hilbeck et al., 2015, I concur with the statement in Krimsky, “One cannot read these systematic reviews and conclude that the science on health effects of GMOs has been resolved within the scientific community.” Thus, I am concerned that this statement not be overbroad; the reality is that when a search is confined only to the last five years, things are actually a bit more in question than they were 5-10 years ago. So:
I put my suggestion into a proposal 10 to modify proposal 1, though so many people have commented already that I'm not sure earlier commenters will have a chance to look at it. Montanabw(talk) 05:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Note: I am recused as an arb from matters arising from the GMO case.
the use of the assessed GM plants for feed or human food should be as safe as that of their parental species, with the recommendation of further long-term study. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, there is a scientific consensus on GMOs being no more harmful to health than their conventional counterparts, and, accordingly, I think Proposal 5 is the best option here. Further evidence I feel supports the explicit "consensus" wording in proposal 5 can be found in the following links: this paper, this NAP report summarized here by NBC News, and this poll. Everymorning (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
"True according to scientific consensus" is as close to simply "true" as can be achieved outside of pure math, so WP:ASSERT, WP:YESPOV, etc. No need to count the number of papers published or drill down to what the AMA says or the WHO says at this high summary level. State the facts, state there are disagreeing opinions, and game on. Proposal 6 is the only one to handle this correctly. Proposal 5 has a good point that there are health benefits in some cases. I created a Proposal 11 as a hybrid of 5 and 6. Rhoark (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Support 9 I share others concern about the joining word in proposal 1. I find the sources offered against the consensus position unpersuasive - in particular Krimsky. In addition to concerns about its treatment of Seralini raised by User:Opabinia regalis, its treatment of Pusztai is also rather suspect. In particular, this section "The principal conclusions were published in The Lancet on October 16, 1999. In brief, the authors reported that the rats fed on the GM diet, compared to controls, grew less well, exhibited unusual changes in their tissue, and were found to have immune problems, which did not occur when the rats were fed free GNA lectin proteins."
I struggle to read this any way other than that Ewen & Pusztai's letter to The Lancet reported growth and immune problems in rats fed GM potatoes; but the letter in fact said nothing of the sort (I don't know of a link to the text of the letter that wouldn't be a copyvio or I'd link it here directly). Indeed, a good deal of the controversy occurred because those claims were made before publication, when the publication made no such claims. GoldenRing (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposal #1 articulates the scientific evidence the best. With topics like this, where public opinion is somewhat at odds with scientific consensus, I find it helpful to compare it to the global warming or vaccine articles. Despite all the news articles in the popular press about how some organizations and famous people feel differently, the scientific consensus in the peer reviewed journals (usually reliable secondary sources) dominates the article. Dig Deeper (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, Proposal 1 provides the best presentation of the subject; it is well sourced, provides a sufficient but not overcomplicated explanation of the topic, and deals with both sides of the argument in a manner which neither favors or opposes one over the other. As has been pointed out above, Proposal 2 has quite a few issues, including an emphasis on government opinions over scientific findings; it would need some sort of expansive rewrite to become acceptable. Proposal 3 is... well, yeah, no. This issue needs much more than just a passing mention.
Proposal 4 comes across like this: American groups say GMOs are fine, non-US groups say GMOs are not fine, and international groups say it's not their problem. This obviously isn't the case; many American groups oppose GMOs, and many non-American groups support them. Additionally, the lack of citations to scientific sources and an overall complicated structure makes this a rather poor choice. Proposal 5 is better, but it seems to lean a bit towards the argument for GM, particularly with the "benefits to farmers..." bit, so I am inclined to oppose it. Proposal 6, as was mentioned, is factually inaccurate; on top of this, it seems to paint the public opinion on the subject as unfounded and overreactionary ("Nonetheless, in spite of this scientific consensus on safety", those fools still don't understand the facts).
Proposal 7 is okay, but could use more sources, particularly to scientific journals; Proposal 8 seems reasonable as well, though it would ideally be lengthier. Proposal 9 would be another good choice; given that it is a rewording of Proposal 1, the only real difference between the two lies in presentation rather than quality, so I really don't favor one over the other. I'm rather indifferent to Proposal 10, as goes for Proposal 11; though they're not bad options, they certainly could be better.
In conclusion, Proposal 1 seems the best way to go, though with the improvement of existing options or the addition of new proposals as this discussion continues, nothing is final as of yet. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Summary:
Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 20:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm planning to take my time on this one. I did some research of my own a while back, but not enough, and certainly not all of the sources presented here. I'll start with those proposals that seem obvious to me and come back periodically as I get around to reviewing their respective citations. As an opinion on a particular proposal crystallizes, I'll bold it. Those not in boldtext should be considered tentative (and, for simplicity's sake, probably discounted if we reach the end of 30 days and they haven't gone bold). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose all proposals. Current wording is succinct, not burdened by the stacked footnotes characteristic of POV pushing, and accurate. There is no scientific evidence that GMO crops on the market today pose any greater threat to human health than their non-GMO equivalents. Full stop. Carrite (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Generally disagree with trying to mandate one answer to all pages, however I will offer some comments.
Question 1: No, scientific consensus is not shown. Cites show a variety of strong supports from variety of bodies of medical or scientific nature. Factually that it is multiple instead of a single cite or a body makes it clear this is not scientific consensus of actual measured opinion of a specified scientific community. Say it as it is, a strong support from numerous health and science groups. On a sidenote, the collection of disparate sources of support or criticism seems a bit improper, a WP:SYNTH.
Question 2: Revise to appropriate WEIGHT on situation and public view. The language of proposals 4 and 10is somewhat better sticking to the facts and provides summary. (Proposal 7 and 8 seem seeking to be factual as well, but are more limited by being only WHO.) But they seem to give undue WP:WEIGHT to 'scientific' viewpoint and to shortchange and misstate overall regulation and public view. Proposal 4 has no content of those, so it highlights scientific bodies and nothing else. Proposal 10 makes some remarks but puts it behind, less in amount, and misstated as the 'public are much less likely' does not convey the situation 'does not perceive them as safe', and 'varies by country' seems inaccurately conveying 'regulated in most nations'. Could use some more cites of the public view and regulatory status, if any exist, but if not then go with just follow the cites and state what is available more accurately and in due weight. Is seems not like March Against Monsanto has AAAS message directed specifically to them or at the event, nor would AAAS statement be getting coverage in articles on the march of greater weight than the protestors views, so why would they get weight there ??? Markbassett (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
None of these proposals are acceptable to me. The current wording is fine as-is. I think the stated desire to address varied viewpoints is wrong-headed, generally. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I generally support proposal 1, with weaker support for the various variations proposed for proposal 1. I generally object to the other proposals which deny or downplay scientific consensus. I support the additional comment in proposal 1 (and variations) that state that public perception is in contrast with the scientific consensus.
I would also like to comment on the idea to reduce "reference spam" or "overreferencing". I agree that having [8][9][10][11][12][ad nauseum] after every sentence is distracting and obnoxious to read, but I disagree about putting all the references on a seperate page to be linked. Instead, I would prefer using various coding tricks I've seen on other articles to have a single reference number that pops up a box that then contains the list of all references as needed. With this in mind, I would not mind us adding even MORE references, as many as might be useful to anyone that, for example, might be writing an academic paper on the subject. Fieari (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposal 1 looks like the best proposal to me. A general problem in this topic area is that there is that a large fraction of the European public is opposed on ideological grounds without there being a sound scientific motivation for this opposition. This opposition feeds back into reliable sources as people elect governments who then will make laws to which the industry will have to stick to. A lot of the scientific research commissioned by the governments has to do with reconciling the requirements of the laws with the science, this gives a misleading picture of the safety issues, which in turn has the effect of amplifying the notion the public has about GM foods having all sorts of problems. It's quite similar to why a large part of the population is opposed to nuclear energy on safety grounds while millions of people die each year from the consequences of air pollution. Count Iblis (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm OK with 1, but prefer my edited version, 16 17. Same content, less verbiage. The scientific consensus claim is well-supported by quotes in the cites. Of course, there was once a consensus that the earth was flat. So there's that. I'm less interested in celebrating consensus than I am in communicating what's underneath the consensus. Our job isn't to reassure readers, but to present facts that they can interpret.
I'm astonished about how big a deal those two words have become. I have no confidence that this RfC will put the issue to bed. (Redacted) Lfstevens (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I support proposal 1. I could also support those proposals which slightly modify the wording of proposal 1 in various ways, provided they retain a clear statement that there is scientific consensus on this topic. Many people oppose what the agricultural companies are doing on political, economic or ideological grounds. Our articles should include mention of that, but not at the expense of muddling the science. - MrOllie (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
As a preface to my comments I would say that baldly stating that there is a "scientific consensus" is going too far. The term "a broad scientific consensus in the USA" would be better, and still in line with the references provided. The situation is more complex in the UK and some other countries, as the references show.
-- Johnfos (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposal 1: Strong Oppose. The first part of the statement is technically true, although strangely worded, sinc the scientific consensus is that GM crops are safe, but the second claim that the scientific consensus is that they should be tested on a case-by-case basis is definitely wrong. Your not going to find many scientists who think that each GM crop has to be tested since its no different than conventional breeding.
Proposal 2: Weak Oppose. I'm not frilled with the second sentence since obviously not all countries have this criteria. Otherwise if removed I wouldn't fully oppose.
Proposal 3: Strong Oppose. This is just vague, incorrect, and liable to lead one to misinterpretation. The scientific consensus is that GM crops are safe.
Proposal 4: Strong Oppose. All of it is very innacurate.
Proposal 5: Strong Oppose. Again interjecting this claim that scientists think that each GM crop needs to be scrutinized. Obsurd. Definately not the scientific consensus.
Proposal 6: Weak Oppose. First sentence is strange. Would be better if it was reworded as "Currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food. However, many countries currently require GM foods to be tested before their introduction.".
Proposal 7: Strong Oppose. Just a weird statement overall. Why would the method by which a gene is introduced neccessitate safety assesment.
Proposal 8: Strong Oppose. Why is the WHO singled out as if they are some group who has the best opinion on this matter.
Proposal 9: Strong Oppose. Same concerns as in 1.
Proposal 10: Strong Oppose. The statement "the health effects of GMOs is not fully resolved" is very inaccurate.
Proposal 11: Strong Oppose. "To account for the possibility of unintended effects, each modified variety needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction" This statement is problematic.
Proposal 12: Strong Oppose. Has many of the same problems as the previous statements.
Proposal 13: Strong Oppose. Has many of the same problems as the previous statements.
Proposal 14: Strong Support. There is nothing wrong with the current language. Its accurate and concise. It would be good to add that the scientific consensus is that GM crops are safe, but all of the proposals listed so far add in a bit of misinformation in their wordings. So I'd prefer no changes if no better alternative is given.
Proposal 15: Weak Support.
Proposal 16: Strong Oppose.
Proposal 17: Strong Oppose.
Proposal 18: Strong Support. This one is the clearest and most accurate. I added it, because I didn't like any of the ones already submitted. Chhe (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposal 1-3: Oppose. It suggests that all genetically modified crops have been tested and weakly suggests that other GMO foods are also non-different than organic counterparts. Most of all however it suggests that general scientific consensus par excellence has been achieved, while we all know that there are peer reviewed papers that question it, especially on alergenicity of GMO.
Proposal 4: Weak Oppose. Dancing around the issue.
Proposal 5-11: Oppose. Much beacuse of the same reasons as the previous ones.
Proposal 12: Strong Support. Stresses the ambiguity of the issue.
Proposal 13: Support. Simillar as 12.
Proposal 14-18: Oppose. Same reasons as the first three.
One more thing - keep in mind that this discussion has nothing to do with who is right about the GMO. Omitting the fact that there are scientists who disagree with general consensus is being partial same way as denying the fact that there is a general consensus of sorts. I think the best option would be to inform about both of those facts in as opinionless tone as possible. --P-Pal88 (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this RFC approaches "truth by voting". That said:
Tarl N. (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather not comment on each proposal, because I think we're getting bogged down as to the precise wording that needs to be used. What this RfC should really do is to establish some general principles for a boilerplate version that can be used in many articles. For instance, do we use the phrase "scientific consensus?" Do we mention public opinion? Do we mention variable regulation? How, if at all, do we treat views outside the majority?
With this in mind, here are some thoughts. There do not appear to be serious scientific opinions stating that GM foods are unsafe; ergo proposal 3, and others implying false equivalence, are not appropriate. However, there are sources, namely Krimsky 2015 and Bawa & Anilkumar 2012, which are saying something subtle that some folks are glossing over. These sources, which need to be given due weight, are not saying GMOs are unsafe, but are saying that there isn't enough evidence to call them unequivocally safe. Therefore, making statements about scientific consensus is, as of now, premature. What we should say is something like "most scientists and these scientific bodies believe [GMOs are safe]. These others state that further study is required to determine their safety." followed by stuff about public opinion and regulation. Therefore, proposal 12 comes closest to representing the evidence we have here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
JohannSnow (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It is absurd to have a general statement regarding whether all genetically modified organisms are safe to consume, or whether all genetically modified organisms should be treated with suspicion. This is because each genetic modification has a different purpose, and may have different effects. For example:
Jasper (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
GMO are not inherently safe or unsafe. However, it's perfectly fair to say that it's a field that's still pretty uncharted, and that the ethics of the companies that engineer them, the patent laws surrounding them, and the whole idea of modifying things genetically is controversial.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
For the inevitable straw poll counting that will take place, I support #1 though I would prefer the "nonetheless" to be removed ("however" or nothing at all is fine).
I disagree with any attempt to paint this as a "jury still out" issue in the "scientific consensus" meaning of the term (e.g. 3, 4, 10, 12). The law of gravitation is as much disputed as GM food safety: excluding agenda-pushers like Séralini, the points of contention are extremely minor compared to what the general public thinks it is. "It should be safe, but ideally, further study would be better, and it would appease the angry mob outside" is different from "I do not know, really". We have come to a point where the press releases from governmental bodies are weaseling because the public is afraid, and the public is afraid because the PR are weaseling. </rant>
Important note: even if the scientific consensus is going in that way because Monsanto money influences the process, it is still scientific consensus for Wikipedia. We should not enter the business of guessing what would have been the result of studies if none of them had been sponsored by the industry even in an indirect way (if Monsanto recruits graduates from your labs, they are likely to hush any inconvenient results even if the study itself was govt-sponsored). We have no way to do that, and neither does anyone, and it would be textbook WP:OR. For the record, I do not believe money is sufficient to compromise the process - the oil industry is much larger than the GMO industry, and climate change is a much more complex issue to quantify, but the scientific consensus is still pretty clear.
I strongly oppose wording similar to "scientific consensus is that each GM food need to be tested on a case-to-case basis", as it attributes a normative statement to scientific consensus (attributing such a view to "scientists" is fine). "GM food is safe" or "drunk driving is unsafe" are descriptive statement even though the exact details of the statistical tests and studies hiding behind "safe" are important; "we should eat GM food" or "we should not drink and drive" are prescriptive.
While I do not oppose mentions of scientists vs. population views, I do not find any satisfying wording in the propositions that does not give the general impression of "dumb populace, why won't they accept the experts' words already" (e.g. #2). That is WP:SYNTH. I also oppose mention of "benefits for farmers, consumers" etc. such as what is in 5 because again, it may be true, but in the context it is a POV assertion.
TigraanClick here to contact me 08:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree strongly with Jasper. If we claim that genetically-modified foods need to be tested for safety individually, we need to make it clear that that is no different from unmodified food. We should also point out that genetic modification is not a single process done to foods and that it couldn't be that every possible genetic modification makes every possible food unsafe to eat or that something fundamental about genetic modification does that. I don't think any of the proposals currently does either of these adequately. KSFTC 14:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I support proposal one, but I agree with many above that the second sentence could use a tweak. I feel like an aspect change in the second sentence would be more accurate. Something like, "Nonetheless, members of the public have been much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe." Then we capture both the scientific consensus and also acknowledge the very real resistance to GMO foods to date. Mizike (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I support proposal one with the qualifications added by FourViolas below, particularly using a term such as "the majority of scientists" rather than "consensus". I would not be averse to indicating that there are serious scientists who consider that until long-term studies are concluded, there is no way to be sure of the health effects of any particular modification. HGilbert (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Declaration of potential COIs: Several years ago, I was paid to work on an American campaign to mandate the labeling of GE foods. More recently, I was paid to do lab work which included genetic manipulation of organisms in a non-agricultural context. I am not currently affiliated with either project.
User:Jasper makes good points, showing that language in or near this boilerplate should clarify which organisms (currently or imminently commercially-marketed transgenic foods) are under consideration. FourViolas (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I think this is a poorly formed RfC, since so many of the proposed wordings are so similar in essence I couldn't understand what the dispute is about until I started reading the comments (in fact I had to reread #16 and #17 several times before I actually spotted the two words that had changed between the two). I suggest those more familiar with what is causing issues here edit each proposal to explain why that proposal is different from the others.
Until then, support option #1, because I don't see any reason not to. The other options are generally either flawed (e.g. #2 uses unencyclopedic text, #3 is a cop-out), or I don't see enough difference to shift from the status quo (e.g. #12). Banedon (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I was asked by a bot to come and comment on this discussion. Frankly, get rid of the word "embrace" in proposal #4 and replace it with "accept" and it becomes more neutral. Who uses such a loaded term in scientific writing? The others are more or less acceptable. It is difficult for me to see why editors are so passionate about this topic. Best Regards,
Strong Support: Proposal 1. It reflects the sources well and is clearly written.
Oppose: Proposal 2. Its lead sentence looks a bit clunky and it conflates governmental approval with safety.
Strong Oppose: Proposal 3. All I can say positive is that it's brief...
Strong Oppose: Proposal 4. It tries to create a false balance, misrepresents scientific consensus.
Support: Proposal 5. Would be my second choice, it's more informative than the first but comes off as a bit argumentative.
Strongest support Proposal 18. This is the most informative yet. It represents the scientific consensus more clearly than any other proposal. Although, "current" is a bit redundant for the scientific consensus.
Strongest Oppose Proposal 21. Not only does it try to create a false balance, but also gives credence to the claim that GMO's are unsafe, which is the opposite of the scientific consensus.
Various degrees of oppose and neutral for the rest.
Also Strong Oppose to any proposal that contains "as of 2016." Scientific knowledge is always provisional and subject to revision, it makes no sense to say something like "as of [date]" This gives a false impression that studies so far on this topic area are less reliable than other scientific topics. Darwinian Ape talk 02:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Q1: I think that the sources indicate there is a scientific consensus about GM food's safety.
I think that there are too many proposals to follow and properly analyze. Why not just agree on the basic concepts first, then form a proposal?
I'll make a few general comments and hope that they are helpful:
--Pgallert (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
These are my thoughts (number corresponding to proposal #):
As of now, I can only support #1 but I feel it needs to be rewritten; #16 if revised could also work. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Edit: Revised at - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 16:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposal 1 is great, but brevity is the soul of wit, so I'd go with Proposal 8 as the shortest which accurately covers the three main points (no evidence of danger, case-by-case, public distrust). Proposal 3 misses too much. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposal 1 for me, because it presents the "scientific views on the safety of genetically modified crops for human consumption" which is the purpose if this RfC. However, amendment is required, and that is to insert the word "some" into the second sentence so that it reads "Nonetheless, some members of the public are much less likely....". It's drawing a long bow to say all members of the public are are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. Moriori (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposal 1 is the best worded. It does need the addition of the caveat that medium and long term studies are still needed, as noted in some of the sources, as this is an integral part of any conclusion in health science. I agree that the sentence on public perception may not be needed, and if left needs a qualifier such as "some." I think the sentence on government regulation is more than enough to sum up the global mood and also represents the varying official opinions (and by implication, particularly in democracies, public opinions) on the safety on GMOs. I do have concerns about "currently available" as this doesn't state where they are available. Given the wide spectrum of regulation, as others have mentioned there may be some USA-centricism here, countries may have stricter or even more lax regulations whereby GMOs may be sold with limited testing. The first sentence does seem like a broad brush for this reason. Maybe a more accurate line would be "GMO foods currently approved for sale in the..." with a list of major markets who only allow sale of independently tested GMOs. Gudzwabofer (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposal 1 is my preference. It summarizes the points succinctly. It states the majority opinion, but it also gives appropriate weight to the fact that a lot of people disagree with the scientific majority opinion, without coming across as biased towards the minority viewpoint- which is not easy to do. I prefer the word "nonetheless" to the word "however" in Proposal 17 and some others. "However" seems more biased towards the "GMOs are bad" viewpoint to me, while "nonetheless" comes across as more neutral, "even though the evidence says this, by the way here are some addition things to note" - "however" implies more of a contradiction to me, as in "even though the evidence says xyz, the following will tell you why that is likely wrong." -KaJunl (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposal 4 and proposal 20 (which is better, just isn't finished) are the ones I support. The others are quite honestly biased and do not put forth a neutral point of view. The research on whether GMO's are good or bad for living beings is far from being comprehensive. Frankly, I don't think it necessarily matters if GMO's are good or bad for anyone dealing with the entry on wikipedia. Both sides should be presented and sourced. This subject is too controversial to just state one side and say the scientific community have generally come to a consensus that their is no difference between non-GMO and GMO, in its current state. Maybe state the scientific communities research on the matter and also state public opinion? My guess would be the public opinion would be more negative than anything, but I'm not sure on that.
I read the proposals a couple days ago and just now got to comment on the subject. I re-read all the proposals and noticed some of the things i suggested were in fact in Propoal 1. I will change my support to that one instead. Chase (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
My prefernece is proposal 12. its short (this can be a difficult topic for anyone with little background , such as myself), the proposal states that a majority of the scientific community ( and stating it in a way that means that it is a considerable/notable amount of that community) concludes theres no risk but recommend testing when new stuff is introduced. Then theres also a neutral mention of the opposing view, in a fashion that notes that while it might be a smaller portion its still fairly sigtnificant. All of this without much technical language that can be confusing. I think its an interesting note to mention the publics POV, and thats present in many proposals, but not sure how relevant that is, it does seem to make the issue more down to earth. Sambkk (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
My choice is for #1 with the addition of the line (and citations) "In some cases, modified crops have health and safety advantages over unmodified forms." from #11. It's clear, encyclopedic and to the point. #10 is similar but doesn't read as well, and #11 is rather over-cited! --Drpixie (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I'm new to GMO, and have no starting bias/opinion.
I cannot figure how we can sort out opinions on so many proposals at once. I think this can be broken down to four separate statements in the paragraph (in order):
A. Wording on scientific research
B. Wording on further study
C. Wording on public perception
D. Wording on varying regulations
For instance, on A, the issue seems to hinge mostly on whether "scientific consensus" goes here. For me, the problem is that readers won't know what this phrase means. There is scientific consensus that the Earth isn't flat, and there is also scientific consensus that there is life on other planets, yet these two theories have very different levels of acceptance. Yet some of the alternate proposals to "scientific consensus" may confuse even more. Saying "many scientific studies" may imply 10 out of 11, or 10 out of 100. Replacing "many" with "most" may imply just 51 of 100. More difficult for us is that the studies' summaries themselves tend to avoid saying unequivocally "they're safe", even if all their details seem to say they are (the nature of science avoids WP:TRUTH). So, perhaps stating something in the reverse sense is better, such as "found no basis for health concerns"; then we might precede that with "virtually all", which should imply to most readers that it's more than 95%, which is accurate.
I think will make this RfC manageable if we can first find consensus on A by itself, given we'll later do the "right thing" with B, C, and D. (I may add this alternate focus of the RfC as another numbered proposal if "many" agree ;) .) --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
21 proposals is just too many to sensibly comment upon, so I will give some general comments.
First of all, it should be made clear that it is indeed a scientific consensus but not fact that claims safety. Opponents of GMO's (especially non experts) have challenged the use of rodent models for safety tests and have actually asked what would happen to human embryos of mothers raised exclusively on GM foods. Besides such tests being ethically impossible, it would also require several decades to run such a program, de facto stalling any GM. However, the choice to accept rodent models in testing is a simplification of the real situation and can be challenged.
Secondly, consumer benefits (or substantial equivalence) suggest that that production process, and the socio-ethical decisions made during production do not matter to consumers but that only the end product matters. This is the general position of US politics. EU politics on the other hand adopts the position that production process and technology are essential parts of a product, even if the final product is physically identical to a product produced in different ways (fair trade production is an example). This latter position makes the claim that there are consumer benefit much harder to defend, as the consumer should weigh potential benefits against costs perceived from the production process. At best the EU takes the position that the consumer should be able to freely weigh the costs and benefits and that therefore GM should be labelled as such. This difference in position is one of the major differences in US vs EU policies. Proposal 5 (in particular) appears to take the US position without putting it in this perspective and is seriously problematic.
I hope this helps to some extent (I do have some knowledge on especially consumer attitudes on this topic as I have published several scientific papers on consumer acceptance of GMO (including a cross-cultural meta-analysis in Trends in Food Science and Technology in 2013), so if there are some focused questions on that subtopic feel free to put it to me directly). Arnoutf (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
In general, I like proposal 4 best, mainly because it mentions Krimsky and the UNEP in a non-dismissive way. My concern about many other proposals is with the words "scientific consensus". These words consign anyone who questions the orthodoxy, into the WP:FRINGE WP:PSCI dustbin with Flat Earthers and Alien Shape Shifters. Opponents of GMO deserve to be treated as rational human beings. In this case, claims of 'scientific consensus' in highly politicized statements of umbrella scientific organizations with strong financial COI's need to be taken with a grain of salt, in view of actual papers disputing this alleged consensus. The UNEP focuses some attention on the question of glyphosate residuals in GMO foods. This is the real agricultural reason for most GMO's, and glyphosate has recently been recognized as a carcinogen. So the UNEP's concern seems very real to me. JerryRussell (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposals 2,3,7,8,10,11,12,13 also avoid the words 'scientific consensus' but don't do a very good job of explaining why there is dissent. JerryRussell (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Prefer proposal 4 over proposal 21. I'm not sure any of the reviews go so far as to state that GMO's have been proven to be unsafe for humans to consume. JerryRussell (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I've declared a COI on the talk page, and decided I should do so here as well. I am landlord to three small organic farm operations in Eugene, OR. Wiki COI policy states that whether a COI "becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense." I trust that the closing editors will apply such common sense, both as to the effect this COI might have on my comments, and as to other COI's that exist for this topic at large. JerryRussell (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I am very uncomfortable with all the proposals above that claim scientific consensus on this matter, especially if they give the impression such consensus exists about (as-yet) undeveloped or untested GMOs.
I support Proposal 21, or failing that, Proposal 4.zazpot (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Same as Zazpot: I support Proposal 21, or failing that, Proposal 4. Pips 11:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Some scientific review articles on GM food safety conclude that GMOs are unsafefails WP:V; neither of the cited reviews appear to conclude this and one doesn't even use the word "unsafe".
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I take the European view that the precautionary principle should apply. There is therefore no scientific consensus on being safe. Therefore:
RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Jasper has given a nice summary of the wider issues above. It is absurd to have a general statement about the safety of GMOs. At best, the proposals hide such important issues as herbicide use in footnotes, and at worst they state something as fact that is merely a rough summary of most of the evidence that has so far been trumpeted (which amounts to telling a lie!). However, trying to muster support for something:
I do not like any of the proposals that segue from scientific consensus to popular opinion using "despite", "nonetheless", "however" or similar. My objection is similar in spirit to WP:CLAIM. These words all presuppose that popular opinion should be (but isn't) a causal consequence of scientific consensus. While scientists might like to think otherwise, the fact is that science is only one of many inputs used by people when they make decisions. Consider an exaggerated example that (inappropriately) hints that people are being contrary to what should be their better judgment: "Scientists cannot prove that love exists. Despite the evidence, some people believe in love." Oppose: 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19.
Support: 22
The current wording suffices.
One aspect that seems to be missing from all the proposals is that much of the public opposition to GMOs seems to be derived from public dissatisfaction with the actions of one particular GMO company, Monsanto. These actions have included patenting seeds, locking farmers into restrictive contracts, restricting research with their seeds, making GMO crops that encourage the use of herbicides or pesticides, and preventing or suing farmers from replanting the seeds that they grow for subsequent crops. None of these actions is inherent in the concept of GMOs nor are they essential to the development, deployment nor use of GMOs. Partly due to the lack of other effective ways to oppose these controversial actions of Monsanto, all GMO crops have been "tarred" with public opposition merely because of the controversy around Monsanto's unrelated actions. This information would help to inform readers about why public opinion is so far from scientific opinion on this topic.
The sources from proposal 1 have propogated throughout the later proposals without close inspection. I like Prop.1, but the sources are moderately US-centric, and some of them (AAAS in [5], AMA in [7]) are position papers regarding a specific policy under consideration in the US. Moreover, a number of the RS are over ten years old ([10],[11],[12],[14],[15],[20]). Some of these are very high-quality (WHO, FAO), but give the impression that scientific consensus existed in the past rather than the present. The talk page clarifies that this is not against MEDRS, but for a technology less than thirty years old, a fourteen-year-old paper might no longer reflect the state of the field. I also like ASOF (Props.16,17,19), which conveys the idea that the consensus may change if e.g. a new GMO food did show harm in trials.
Most of these proposals are too wordy. Especially if we're planning to transclude the successful boilerplate into all of the affected pages. (Is that the plan?) We're apparently likely to end up with Scientific opinion on the safety of genetically modified organisms per User:Aircorn in the Arbcom case, which page can elaborate on the subtleties omitted from the boilerplate and grow the cite herd.
The preponderance of RS assert that there is "scientific consensus" regarding the human health aspect of GMOs. There are a good number of RS that disagree, but using the terms "scientific agreement" or "majority of scientific papers" or whatever seems very SYNTH.
Judging from Talk, further sourcing issues seem to revolve around
Krimsky is an outsider to the field, and editor of the journal in which he was published. Including Krimsky seems like ADVOCACY to me, especially Prop.21, where Krimsky and Domingo are the first two cites. Panchin is an outsider to the field, but not to statistics, upon which their critique of Domingo is based. This paper is very recent, but as it has been peer-reviewed we can't question its validity here. However, excluding Domingo from the cites seems wrong, so I suggest citing both in the context of Panchin overturning Domingo.
To address these opinions of mine, I propose Proposition 22.
Weak support: 1, 16, 19, 20.
Proposal 14 - How many sources qualifies this for Scientific Consensus? I say avoid the term Consensus if at all possible. Simplify it to just say "Studies have shown...".
Every proposal listed is written with complete disregard to WP:WORDS. So I cannot recommend to replace the existing wording. - P14 - No ChangeDrkBlueXG (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I strongly support Proposal 4, support 20 and 21, and oppose the others. Although the longest, I feel Prop 4 best represents the complex issue. I appreciate the links to substantial equivalence and the precautionary principle. I don't see justification for a current scientific consensus.
Proposal 4 (and 20 and 21) cite the IAASTD report with the telling line, data are provided by the companies owning the genetic materials, making independent verification difficult or impossible.
I feel that's vital to include. Even if there were a consensus, any scientist provided only biased data will come to a biased conclusion. Adding the COI and Monsanto's revolving door to government and academia, we should be cautious.Reidgreg (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
RfC question 1: Tentatively yes; follow the sources and their due reliability. I'm aware of previous support for using "scientific agreement" not "scientific consensus". But we have an article at scientific consensus – users will have a way to see what this term of art means – and not one for "scientific agreement", a fake term we made up.
RfC question 2: On specific proposals. I oppose except where noted otherwise in boldface. For purposes of this, I consider "main article" (singular) to be Genetically modified food, and "primary articles" (plural) to be Genetically modified food, Genetically modified food controversies, and (for particular details) Genetically modified crops and Genetically modified organism. Some version of #1 should be used in all of them, with extended version based on #2 for main and maybe primary articles.
Remember that this is summary material, not an entire article. We must avoid bogging the reader down in hair-splitting detail, siding with the WP:FRINGE view, misrepresenting scientific consensus as WP:TRUTH, using emotional or baggage-laden language, and being so vague or clipped that the result is confusing, open to interpretation, or just raises questions in the reader's mind instead of answering them.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC) Revised — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
There are good reasons to be concerned about the use of the techniques involved in developing GMOs; and about the growing of GMO crops. The effect of consuming the crops is not among them. When informed scientists express their concerns about GMOs, the message absorbed by ordinary people is "GMOs are bad, that must be because they are toxic". Some, not all, anti-GMO campaigners, accept and even encourage this misunderstanding. It would be good if the disclaimer under discussion could draw a distinction between "eating GM crops is risky" and "GM crops are risky". Maproom (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food. Each GM food is scientifically tested before introduction. Ordinary consumers are less likely to agree with regulatory and scientific testing bodies that GM foods are safe. Consequently, the legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.
There's more that could be added about the benefits of GMO foods as well as how much opposition is rooted in protectionism, etc, etc, but it starts to get into the weeds with all the secondary effects.
In short, plainly state facts as facts as we know them. Don't justify testing with "precautionary principle", just state that testing is done (it's presumed that all testing is for the precautionary principle and we should mention PP only if a protocol abandons it - and there is no evidence this is the case). --DHeyward (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposal 8 has been amended in accord with the suggestions made, and I ask that fresh looks be made. Its aim is to be concise, accurate, and easily understood. Remember this is "boilerplate" and where specific other material is reasonable to include in specific articles, it does not preclude such additional material. Collect (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
While I'm a little late to the table, I strongly support Proposal 1, given that the preponderance of reliable sources appear to support the existence of a scientific consensus that existing genetically engineered crops intended for human consumption are no more dangerous than conventional crops. While there are dissenting opinions, most of the commonly cited ones appear to fall under WP:FRINGE (Seralini, Carman, Senneff, etc.) Of course, I'm assuming that the associated references are for the purposes of this RfC, rather than something that would necessarily be included with the final statement on each of the affected pages.
While some have expressed concerns about the "but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction" caveat, I have yet to see any evidence of regulatory agencies or scientists suggesting that GMO foods should be approved for consumption without testing. To start with, there is the necessity of testing to ensure new proteins in GMOs are not allergenic[1], to say nothing of other unintended effects. Without testing, you could end up with the GMO equivalent of the conventionally bred Lenape[2] potato, which produced unusually high levels of solanine. --tronvillain (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Support proposal 1 as being most consistent with sources. I don't have time to comment on all 23 proposals, but I strongly oppose number 23: Some scientific review articles on GM food safety conclude that GMOs are unsafe that implies that there are is a considerable number of them. while others conclude that they are Generally Recognized as Safe implies false equivalence. Also, GRAS is technical jargon used by the FDA and which also appears to be applied incorrectly here. Numerous countries, such as those in the E.U., follow the precautionary principle and require testing and/or labeling of GM this is a red herring, made less obvious because it's crouched in jargon: the Precautionary Principle is just an alternative definition of what "safe" means. I don't have room to get into that here, obviously, but it's just another path into the wilderness. We might as well say, "different countries disagree with what "safe" means", which would be equivalent in meaning but I think Wikipedians would have a better chance of seeing the problem there. Different countries define safe differently, "safe" can be defined in such way that is so stringent it cannot be demonstrated, and, perhaps, some countries that desire to keep foreign agricultural products out of their domestic markets while simultaneously selling their own abroad may be especially motivated to do so.
"Scientific consensus" is the right way to put it. It means that most scientists (as given in sources) believe that GMO food is reasonably safe (as in, not more unsafe than conventional food, some of which may be dangerous). There can be some dissent on the safety of GMO food, if not now, then it can be reasonably anticipated in the future. There can be some dwindling dissent on climate change, or it's within the realm of possibility that there might be at some point in the future, because science is tentative. This is not something like the shape of the Earth or its age of the Earth. Those are so well established that it's unfathomable that someone will seriously claim that it is flat in the future or that science will ever re-consider that it might be 6,000 years old. That debate is over, and it's unthinkable that it will come back. Science isn't that tentative. Geogene (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposal 1 is not bad, but I would take care especially with what SMcCandlish calls "misrepresenting scientific consensus as WP:TRUTH". Most of the other proposals have obvious problems.
I agree that the modified proposal 8 is not bad.
I'm no expert in this topic, but it is my understanding that a major issue is not the GMO plants themselves, but rather the chemicals that are used on them. There may also be a consensus that it is OK for humans to consume a lot of RoundUp, but that's also something that I see challenged a lot. Does the scientific consensus on GMO crops extend to that? Not sure... Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Strongly oppose to Proposals 1, 5, 6, 9,16, 17, 18, 19, 22 as they speak about scientific consensus. Other Proposals show that there is no scientific consensus. Also, there is direct source about "No scientific consensus on GMO safety" (including food safety) in Environmental Sciences Europe. Proposals, which mention "current available" foods are unappropriate new available food can appear every day.
Weak support to Proposals 4, 20 as they show different significant opinions. But it is not clear, what "other international scientific organizations" in the first sentence. Cathry (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
As other editor give link to Domingo 2016 review with description "agrees with consensus". I must say he don't. As he don't support "substantial equivalence" concept and demands long-term studies "studies on the long-term health effects of GM plants, including tests of mutagenicity, teratogenicity and carcinogenicity seem to be still clearly necessary." What he did it is only description of the available research which are not about all available crops and are not long-term mostly Cathry (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm a layperson and have no strong views on the issue; I'm mainly concerned with conciseness and neutrality. From what I can gather proposal 1 reflects scientific and other reliable sources' consensus. Proposal 22 attempts to condense it into a more layperson-friendly summary. I therefore support proposals 1 or 22 or some combination thereof. I oppose the more verbose proposals and those attempting to cast doubt on what seems to be scientific consensus by using qualifying language such as "most studies", etc. I'm also not sure that the more skeptical position by members of the public needs to be mentioned in a lead-style summary at all, but I can see why it might be. Sandstein 07:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Support proposal #1.—S Marshall T/C 09:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Overall, I would support Proposal 1 as being what we want, as it has good sources well-summarized and doesn't suffer from the faults of some of the other proposals' text such as false equivalence (4), blatant anti-GM POV (21), subtle anti-GM POV (10) or pointed lack of content (3). Alexbrn (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
To start off, I’m an involved editor even though I’m commenting right before the closure. For some reason I thought I had another week, but I’m often relatively inactive here and lost track of time.
For the question on whether there is a scientific consensus, my answer is yes based on the weight of sources. To avoid reiterating previous arguments, I’ll just say that while dissenting sources exist (which is expected, since consensus is not unanimous), they are heavily outweighed. It may be useful to consult the list of sources I compiled here (originally mentioned here) as a summary of the sources mentioned in the June 2015 RfC. Note that for statements about food safety, only WP:MEDRS sources are relevant for determining weight – for example, this excludes statements by non-scientific organizations (in general, any group that isn’t explicitly a medical or scientific society) as well as all primary research literature.
As background, the answer to the consensus question should also be clear from the results of the two previous RfCs. While the second formally found no consensus, it’s important to note that (besides the fact that this meant the previous result stood) the rationale primarily focused on procedural issues. Additionally, a clarifying comment by the closing admin shows that their evaluation of weight was similar to the previous conclusion (direct quote: “Indeed, my closing statement implied that a fairly small shift in the balance should be enough for consensus, with due weight still strongly favoring the view that these foods are safe.” [25][26])
For the second question: while I naturally have individual preferences, in general I will support any version which clearly states the scientific consensus, and does not give false balance to alternative views. In this context, for false balance I mean that even though there may be a few scientists supporting any one view, the reason for the prominence of alternative views must be presented as a popular (not scientific) phenomenon. Likewise, I will generally oppose proposals where the safety statement is attributed, because they are too easy to interpret as carrying too much ambiguity.
Whether the precise word “consensus” appears isn’t that important to me, even though the previous RfCs tended to focus on this issue. The key point is that when a source makes a factual statement about GM foods without using the word “consensus,” the source can still support a direct statement of fact – which is stronger than “consensus,” because consensus specifically allows for the existence of dissent.
All that said, my first preference is proposal 1. For the other proposals, many of the points I would have made were already said effectively by other editors; I’ll just add some things that weren’t mentioned or which I think should be re-emphasized. To add to my comments above, reasons for opposing include:
I’m glad that it seems we’ll be able to resolve this soon. Sunrise (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
1. Based upon the policies, guidelines, and concepts related to scientific consensus, listed below, do the preponderance of reliable sources (see citations in the listed proposals) indicate that there is a scientific consensus about the safety of genetically modified food with respect to human health?
2. Should the existing language be changed, and which content proposal(s), if any, best represent the answer to question 1 for inclusion in the articles listed above?
As I stated in the formation of this unusually-constructed Rfc, there is no need for this process, and the very idea of locking-in article content that can't be changed sets a terrible precedent for business/scientific Wikipedia topics. That said, I'll support #4 and #20 per David Tornheim, who closely observed and attempted to correct this misguided Rfc from its inception. I'll also strongly oppose #1 as biased and manipulative. Using Wikipedia to comment on GMO "safety" is a breathtaking misuse of the project which smacks of Public Relations, and is not what I call encyclopedic. I also thank Petrarchan47 for bringing up numerous important points despite resistance. I urge closers to consider the big picture here, and not take what can easily be interpreted as a pro-GMO position. I believe to do so will make Wikipedia a worldwide laughingstock. Jusdafax 08:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose all proposals as replacements, across multiple articles, for the existing sentence described in the RfC preamble - editorial scope of the 20+ proposals varies greatly, they are not alternatives. GM food safety should be developed in the most relevant article, then summarized (WP:LEAD)); currently, the material in proposals is not coherently covered in any of the articles.
Proposal 1 and the other scientific consensus statements are particularly problematic. Scientific consensus is NOT something that editors can determine for themselves by assembling sources and deciding that they collectively represent the generally held view (WP:OR>WP:SYNTH). For Wikipedia to declare a consensus, we need high quality, neutral sources that clearly says so (WP:RS/AC). Further, the plain English takeaway from Prop 1 Sentence 1 (the only sentence directly applicable to the RfC question) is: "Science says that GM food is as safe as non-GM food, but new products will still be tested." This amounts to Wikipedia providing a scientific endorsement of GM food, that fails to represent the underlying facts. Prop 1 has numerous problems, including:
Scientific consensus not verifiable as cited: Prop 1 Sentence 1 offers 15 sources. The three strong sources by type, two review studies, Nicolia and NAS, and a Library of Congress report, do not support consensus wording: "scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops" - Nicolia [1]; "the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts" - NAS[2]; and "Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements ... indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products" - LoC[3]. No broad statement of consensus, rather, findings to date, substantial equivalence, and attribution to specific organizations.
Misleading scope: "Currently available" presents a narrow subset of all GM food that excludes, notably, 1) meat from animals raised on GM feed (widespread); 2) GMO meat (notably, the GM salmon approved in 2015 in US and Canada); 3) unapproved GM food from black market seed in major producing countries (well-documented).[4] Further, most GM food available now is so classified because it contains highly processed GM crop ingredients that retain little or no genetic material, not GM whole foods like fruits and vegetables.[5] - to imply that "currently available" includes a normal range of foods, is misleading and inaccurate.
Misleading on case-by-case testing: "... but that each GM food needs to be tested" suggests that safety is settled, but precautionary testing of new foods is still recommended. In fact, safety is addressed specifically by testing the unique modification in each GMO - case by case testing has been and remains the only approval approach, and the aggregate of test results for different GMOs does not add up to increased assurance, as each GMO is different. (WP:NEUTRAL>WP:IMPARTIAL)
Misrepresents that safety science is settled: GMO research is vigorously ongoing, with new and more exotic GMOs, new assessment tools, new parties involved in GMO development,... To state that there is broadly settled science around GMO safety is inaccurate and misleading.
Substantial equivalence is not given due weight: The universal scientific basis for GM crop commercialization is substantial equivalence (comparing GMOs with conventional counterparts) as determined by regulatory agencies - requirements vary by country (e.g. voluntary (US) or mandatory (EU) testing), while the actual scientific assessment is essentially the same everywhere.[6] "No riskier than/as safe as" is drawn from equivalence testing. For example, from the FDA: "In conclusion, all of the data and information we reviewed ... really drive us to the conclusion that AquAdvantage salmon is Atlantic salmon, and food from AquAdvantage salmon is as safe as food from other Atlantic salmon"[7] - "as safe as" is not the result of scientific consensus, it is based on regulatory assessment of test data for the individual GMO. This is protocol testing, conducted to satisfy regulatory requirements, and in that respect, distinct from other ongoing GMO research - to conflate the two without explanation is misleading, and fails to establish the central importance of substantial equivalence (WP:NEUTRAL>WP:BALASPS).
A factually accurate and NEUTRAL GM food safety summary should make two things clear: 1) to date, multiple lines of scientific inquiry have found no significant hazard from GMOs used for food and feed (e.g. NAS (2016), Nicolia (2013), others); 2) approval of GM food for human consumption is universally based on substantial equivalence, which compares each GM food with a similar conventional food that has been safely eaten over time, to establish that the GM food carries no novel risk.(Nicolia, others). This avoids questionable assertions like "currently available" and "scientific consensus," accommodates all cited sources without synthesis, and sticks to basic, plainly stated facts. --Tsavage (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
En general, apoyo la propuesta nº 1. Las fuentes indican la existencia de un consenso sobre este punto, y las fuentes de mayor calidad son las que lo desarrollan. Me preocupa el uso de fuentes de baja calidad como Krimsky en la propuesta, pero no es suficiente para evitar que la apoye. No apoyo ninguna de las diversas propuestas que intentan datar el consenso ("a partir de 2016..."), y me opongo firmemente a aquellas propuestas como la nº 4 y la nº 20 que hacen hincapié en la falsa equivalencia sobre este tema. Yobol ( discusión ) 18:59 6 jul 2016 (UTC)