This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetically modified maize article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Food and drink Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Plants Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Molecular Biology: Genetics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Agriculture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Arbitration Committee has authorized discretionary sanctions regarding the language used to summarize the safety and regulation of genetically modified food on this and related articles (including talk pages). On July 7, 2016, the community approved the following language to summarize the safety and regulation of genetically modified food in a request for comment (RfC). This decision applies to all articles listed in the Introduction section of the RfC, and on other articles on genetically modified food safety, broadly construed. This may only be overturned by another widely advertised 30-day RfC, a consensus of administrators on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, or by ruling of the Arbitration Committee. Language per the RfC There is a scientific consensus [1] [2] [3] [4] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. [10] [11] [12] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. [13] [14] [15] [16] 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. [17] [18] [19] [20] Citations ^ Nicolia, Alessandro; Manzo, Alberto; Veronesi, Fabio; Rosellini, Daniele (2013). "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" (PDF). Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 34: 1–12. doi: 10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. PMID  24041244. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops. The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns. ^ "State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU). ^ Ronald, Pamela (May 5, 2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics. 188: 11–20. doi: 10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMC  3120150. PMID  21546547. There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010). ^ But see also: Domingo, José L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Giné (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37: 734–742. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID  21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies. Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40: 1–32. doi: 10.1177/0162243915598381. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story. And contrast: Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology: 1–5. doi: 10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN  0738-8551. PMID  26767435. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm. The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality. and Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96: 1851–1855. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID  26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011). Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date. Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome." ^ "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. October 20, 2012. Retrieved February 8, 2016. The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: 'The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.' 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. Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could 'Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers'". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 8, 2016. ^ "A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010)" (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union. 2010. doi: 10.2777/97784. ISBN  978-92-79-16344-9. Retrieved February 8, 2016. ^ "AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)". American Medical Association. January 2001. Retrieved March 19, 2016. A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from online summary prepared by ISAAA)" "Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from original report by AMA: [1]) "Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Retrieved March 19, 2016. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature. ^ "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs. ^ "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects". The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). 2016. p. 149. Retrieved May 19, 2016. Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts. ^ "Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods". World Health Organization. Retrieved February 8, 2016. Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods. ^ Haslberger, Alexander G. (2003). "Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects". Nature Biotechnology. 21: 739–741. doi: 10.1038/nbt0703-739. PMID  12833088. These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects. ^ Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle: "Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved March 21, 2016. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available. When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis. Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects. The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit. ^ Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee (January 29, 2015). "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society". Pew Research Center. Retrieved February 24, 2016. The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points. ^ Marris, Claire (2001). "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths". EMBO Reports. 2: 545–548. doi: 10.1093/embo-reports/kve142. PMC  1083956. PMID  11463731. ^ Final Report of the PABE research project (December 2001). "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe". Commission of European Communities. Retrieved February 24, 2016. ^ Scott, Sydney E.; Inbar, Yoel; Rozin, Paul (2016). "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 11 (3): 315–324. doi: 10.1177/1745691615621275. PMID  27217243. ^ "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". Library of Congress. June 9, 2015. Retrieved February 24, 2016. ^ Bashshur, Ramona (February 2013). "FDA and Regulation of GMOs". American Bar Association. Retrieved February 24, 2016. ^ Sifferlin, Alexandra (October 3, 2015). "Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs". Time. ^ Lynch, Diahanna; Vogel, David (April 5, 2001). "The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics". Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved February 24, 2016. This wording has been implemented into this article per the result of the RfC above. The Arbitration Committee has authorized discretionary sanctions to implement the result of this RfC. After implementation, editors must not change or remove any part or whole of the text above in the article, including its wording and citations. There is no prejudice against editing other text. Any uninvolved administrator may use discretionary sanctions against editors who repeatedly breach this rule. The wording was created at Talk:Genetically modified crops and then copied to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms, edited further, and then copied to this page. The former pages' edit histories now serve to provide attribution for that content, and must not be deleted so long as this page exists.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stanleybee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Corn rootworms have rapidly evolved to resist Cry3Bb1 Bt corn Voracious Worm Evolves to Eat Biotech Corn Engineered to Kill It. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkit ( talk • contribs) 03:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I removed the link to http://www.rense.com/general40/GMcropsfailing.htm as a reference to removal of Bt 176 from the market as this site didn't seem to be credible. The report referred to was from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace which are not known for their NPOV. In addition, the information on the Wikipedia page stated that Bt 176 was withdrawn from the market after review by "competent authorities" in the U.S. This was a quote from the web page referred to and gave no indication who the "competent authorities" or why they chose to withdraw Bt 176 from the market.

I found information from the E.P.A. about the withdrawl of Bt 176 from the market and added that as a reference. I also gave information about why it was voluntarilly withdrawn.

---

I removed this sentence from the end of the Starlink controversy section because it fails NPOV:

"There have never been any adequately controlled studies to determine whether StarLink actually poses any greater risk of allergic reaction than ordinary varieties of corn."

The word 'adequately' clearly makes this statement one of opinion. If a similar statement is to be reinstated it must attribute this claim to the specific organization (regulatory body or consumer advocacy group probably) or expert that made it. An external link next to the sentence (rather than listed below) would be helpful as well. -- AAMiller 29 June 2005 14:26 (UTC)

---

Sorry I didn't explain my last change better, I had written something but forgot to save the change. The following phrase is the one in question:

Corn sent by the UN and the US as help to Central American nations was also found to contain a large percentage of StarLink corn.

I had changed "large percentage" to "some", and in the summary I asked for a citation. The anonymous editor changed "some" back to "large amount". I will assume this was an honest attempt to correct the problem. However, I did not say that I thought a citation was needed just because the word "percentage" was used. Rather, the word "large" is what I was concerned with. "Large" is subject to interpretation, and somewhat loaded. It could mean more than half to some, or half of a percent to others. This statement is far from being the only one in Wikipedia that needs a citation, and for that reason the qualitative information can stay. However, I will not condone the use of a Weasel word to make it sound quantitative. If a hard figure cannot be cited, then it must suffice to say that "some" of the starlink corn was present. Again, sorry I failed to save my explaination the first time. -- AAMiller 02:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Why not include supersweet varieties in this article?

I added info on the Attribute (tm) sweet corn. The Attribute corns are synergistic supersweets. Jtmilesmmr ( talk) 19:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

---

I removed Yamamoto Ichiro's link again, not for lack of relevance but because it is improperly formatted and placed in the article. I'm not educated on the subject enough to tell, but if it's a proper reference or link, then it needs to be placed in the article as a reference or working link, not pasted in the middle of the article. Thanks! -- Syd 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Attribute sweet corn

I added the section and the link to Seedway, but had not signed in first. Only my IP shows. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be an annon poster on a such a contoversial subj Jtmilesmmr ( talk) 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)I have since chgd the link to the Rogers seed Attribute page as it has more info. Jtmilesmmr ( talk) 20:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

A report by greenpeace does not count as a reliable source.

As it turns out Greenpeaces report is based on preliminary results from some Austrian scientists who "published" a report at a press conference. Report: Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice Authors: Alberta Velimirov, Claudia Binter, and Jurgen Zentek Sponsor: Austrian Ministries for Agriculture and Health. Date: October 2008

This report has not been published in a refereed journal and has thus not been peer reviewed. Thus, it may contain errors. The report has been reviewed by the scientist that invented the method used by the Austrians to examine the mice fertility. He has found many mistakes in the report and concludes: "When properly analyzed, these data do not appear to suppor an effect on fertility or reproduction from consumption of GM corn" [2]

Since the claim has no reliable source I will delete it. Ttguy ( talk) 13:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

What are all the genes that have been added to these corn and from what foreine species? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C518:62C0:4808:D1F7:42E5:4542 ( talk) 04:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS.

PMID  22999595

Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.

Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov;50(11):4221-31. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005. Epub 2012 Sep 19.

Abstract

The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1ppb in water), were studied 2years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3-2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.

PMID  22999595 [PubMed - in process]

Full Free Text:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

-- Ocdnctx ( talk) 18:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Main discussion at [[Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Long term Roundup herbicide or Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize extremely toxic & carcinogenic PMID  22999595]] AIRcorn  (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I expanded the lead, because: 1) there is a tag on the article saying the lead needs to be expanded 2) as per WP:LEAD the lead is meant to summarize the article.

That is what I did.

User:Canoe1967 reverted the expansion in this dif, with an edit note saying "Belongs in the body, not the lead". This doesn't make sense. Canoe can you please explain? thanks Jytdog ( talk) 02:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC) reply

In this dif User:Canoe1967 changed the number of people affected from 28 to 51.

The CDC report http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9cReport/summary.htm in the article says

"The investigation concluded that 28 people had experienced apparent allergic reactions. These people had also reported eating corn products that may have contained Cry9c protein. With the endorsement of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Scientific Advisory Panel which convened on November 28, 2000, CDC recommended that the banked serum samples be evaluated to see if they contained evidence of an allergic response to the Cry9c protein."

What is the source for the number, 51? Please provide in the article. Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 04:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Ok, User:Canoe1967 just edited the article in this dif and reverted to the 51 people number, and added a source: http://www.usda.gov/documents/LLP%20Incidents%202.docx which says "After the discovery of StarLink® in food, 51 people reported adverse effects to the Food and Drug Administration. This information was provided to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which conducted an epidemiological investigation. Of the 51 cases reporting adverse effects, 28 met the case definition for the CDC investigation. Of these, 25 gave FDA permission to release identifying information to CDC."

The text now reads: "51 people(ref) http://www.usda.gov/documents/LLP%20Incidents%202.docx(/ref) reported apparent allergic reactions related to eating corn products that may have contained the Starlink protein. However, the US Centers for Disease Control studied the blood of these individuals and concluded there was no evidence the reactions these people experienced were associated with hypersensitivity to the Starlink Bt protein"(ref) CDC, National Center for Environmental Health. Investigation of Human Health Effects Associated with Potential Exposure to Genetically Modified Corn: A Report to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta,GA:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001.(/ref) (ref markup changed to avoid formatting issues)

I am OK keeping the 51 number for people reporting - we need to include the number of 28 people as people report all kinds of irrelevant things - in this case, 23 people did. So I am adding text as shown in italics here: 51 people reported apparent allergic reactions adverse effects to the FDA; these reports were reviewed by the CDC, which determined that 28 of them were possibly related to Starlink. hopefully this is acceptable to Canoe. Please note that including the phrase "adverse effects" is not copyvio - it is the the term of art for describing these things. Jytdog ( talk) 20:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

to:

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

The discussion is taking place here at at the talk page of Genetically modified crops. Please comment there. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 07:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety language based on the five proposals at GM crops here. This RfC will affect language in the Controversy section of this article. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} and Laser brain (talk) have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply

This is a notice that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms is open for public comment. AIRcorn  (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Lead section is clear, rather short. It's very broad but it summarizes the rest of the article.

Structure is clear and organized. Each section has a header and the information correlates with each subject header.

Some sections are very short- only one or two sentences. Each section should be balanced and this article has sections that are heavier than others.

Coverage is neutral. There is no bias in this article.

Plenty of reliable sources.

Products in development: This section is lacking in information, more than just one product has been, or is under development. This section should be improved to add to the overall balance of the subject. This section could include not only food products developed from GM maize but also potential biofuels or non-crop related products.

Corporate Espionage: This section is also lacking in information. There are only a few, pointed sentences about this section. More detail should be given to fully understand the happenings of this event. This section is not completely clear on what seeds were being stolen or what type of trade secrets were being stolen.

Stanleybee ( talk) 01:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC) reply

No such thing as genex or not, ceptu, be/can be any no matter what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhendq ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Genetically modified maize. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402204619/http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagement/Pages/roundup-ready-system.aspx to http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagement/Pages/roundup-ready-system.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721173513/http://www.gmo-safety.eu/archive/237.monarch-butterflies-threat-individual-caterpillars-population-whole.html to http://www.gmo-safety.eu/archive/237.monarch-butterflies-threat-individual-caterpillars-population-whole.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115215719/http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm to http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC) reply

It seems like a big non-sequitur, and doesn't really seem to have much to do with health or safety, rather, it's a section about crop performance. I feel like the relevant parts of that info could be more efficiently put into another section, rather than a sub-sub-heading that doesn't match the contents, but I ain't knowledgeable enough about the field of corn to go about doing a whole page reorganization, so I'm just gonna leave a talk page note and hope that bringing attention to it gets someone more knowledgable's attention. Peace 'n' love, y'all. 170.251.112.65 ( talk) 16:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply

The text should probably be made more to the point, but the gist is since the Bt trait ends up reduces mycotoxin levels due to insect damage, it also decreases health risks associated with those mycotoxins. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

This page should be renamed to Genetically engineered maize to match the common viewpoint that this is not "modification" but "engineering". Ergzay ( talk) 17:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I would suggest a review of the "resistance" topics of the article since many sections appear to bring misleading information about the mechanisms. Resistance is not developed or created by GMOs. The fact is that resistance is a naturally occurring phenomenon and the inadequate use of GMOs or pesticides/herbicides/fungicides can SELECT and promote differential reproduction of these naturally mutated individuals. Sintropepe ( talk) 13:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 1 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gja226 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Cole Rhoades, ProfessionalGoObEr.

— Assignment last updated by Profmexhist ( talk) 10:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply