Genetically modified organism has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 21, 2019. ( Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genetically modified organism 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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 180 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Genetically modified organism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Genetically modified organism at the Reference desk.

This   level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Molecular Biology: Genetics / MCB 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 Top-importance). This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Environment Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy 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.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Genetic engineering was copied or moved into Genetically modified organism with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

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): Dianerrs.

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

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

I very much appreciate this work, but there is a problem that concerns me significantly. Editors working on this page need to remember that there is a paragraph that was established at WP:GMORFC that must not be altered. Even if it is just an issue of formatting the citations – ping Boghog – this requirement still applies. This is a serious matter, subject to Discretionary Sanctions. There is no problem with a formatting change that is not visible, but recently there have repeatedly been changes that modify the within-citation direct quotes, changing line breaks or the positions of quote marks, and that is not OK. I've been correcting these things, but I should not have to do so, and I certainly do not want the problem to get worse in the course of a GA review. After the most recent round of edits (I assume the ones by you, Aircorn), there is now a citation error within that paragraph, that needs to be fixed promptly. Apparently, some new content in the page uses <ref name=AMA/>, creating a conflict with the RfC paragraph: see the references list. The citation within the RfC paragraph should remain as it is, and the citation somewhere else on the page (I'm not going to look for it) should be revised to something like AMA2.

I realize that these are good-faith errors, so I have no intention of going after anyone, but please stop introducing these problems. There is a very simple way to avoid any problems at all: do not alter the paragraph, even if it is simply a matter of "consistent formatting". A bit of inconsistent formatting is not the worst thing in the world, and it is important not to start down the road of small changes to the consensus paragraph. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC) reply

OK, fine, but there was absolutely no warning given to editors in the article itself that there is a special paragraph that has been frozen in time. There is a warning on this talk page, but not in the article itself. I have added one. It might be better to move this text into a template and transclude the template back into this article (and any other articles that contain this text). Just out of curiosity, and changes to this text (e.g., adding more recent sources) would require a new RFC? Boghog ( talk) 21:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, even adding more recent sources would require either: a new RfC of equivalent prominence, or a consensus of admins at WP:AE, or permission from ArbCom. The GMO ArbCom case was such a bloodletting that this is the way that things are, and why I'm so sensitive about it. But to repeat: I realize everyone here was acting in good faith. I know there is an edit notice every time anyone edits the page, that points to the DS and refers to page-specific restrictions, which in this case means looking at the talk page to see the information about the RfC. I think transcluding a new template might require prior permission from ArbCom. I'm just explaining that; I didn't make the rules. I like what you did with the non-displaying notice. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC) reply

It may be overturned only by another widely published full 30-day RfC, a consensus of administrators at WP:AE, or by decree of the Arbitration Committee. Whether that applies to small edits and modifications could be debated. There was talk of updating the Domingo reference some time ago. Suffice it to say that any change will need some sort of strong consensus. It was a necessary evil at the time and has done its job remarkably well. Personally I have reservations trancluding article content in article space (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 147#Transcluding article content into other articles). The hidden text is a good idea though and I will add it to the other articles. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The way I see it, anything that changes the meaning requires that kind of permission. That would certainly include adding a more recent citation, because that would be tantamount to updating what the RfC decided. For minor modifications such as formatting, I think it's important to keep in mind that each one of the quotations within the citations was fought over scorched earth. When someone makes a relatively trivial revision (maybe that's where the ref name=AMA came from), I take into consideration whether it was good faith. And again, all of what happened this time was entirely good faith. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC) reply

It may well be that we have made a rod for our own back, but I still think it carries more positives than negatives. FWIW I have added the hidden test to all the articles covered under WP:GMORFC so hopefully that helps prevent these good faith edits and saves everyone a bit of angst. AIRcorn  (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for doing that. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)Sorry to do this to you, but I think you introduced the cite error. It was not present when I finished editing last night [3] and came about with this diff. Going back to the original addition of the paragraph in July 2016 it did not use <ref name=AMA/> [4]. Anyway it is really a minor issue, easily solved. I only mention it here because it was assumed I caused it.

I am more interested in the order of the paragraphs in that section. I can understand wanting to keep it as a separate paragraph, but I would like to at least move the health introductory sentence above it. I think it would be good to keep the environmental concerns next followed by the miscellaneous ones. Basically from my understanding health is the main concern (hence the RFC), followed by the environment. It currently doesn't flow well going intro - scientific consensus on health - miscellaneous - health - environment. This is a diff of what I propose [5] (not sure why the spaces were removed, might be a bug in visual editor). I fully understand the importance of the consensus paragraph, I would not be editing this article if we hadn't got that resolution, and have been careful not to change it or edit against the spirit of it. AIRcorn  (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC) reply

As I said, I realize that everybody was acting in good faith, so I'm OK with taking the blame for the cite error. But all I did was restore the cite information that had been there before your edits, and your edits brought in the second "AMA" cite, so, whatever.

About the paragraph order, I'm fine with the reordering you suggest, thanks for asking. But please do not restore it by self-reverting. Please make a clean edit, because your first edit reverted what Boghog did. I just don't want the RfC paragraph to be too low, and I don't want it combined into another paragraph. While you are at it, you might want to check whether, in fact, there are some duplicate citations. I think there might be, for AAAS and AMA, but I didn't check carefully. They look different because of the within-cite quotations. But it would be fine to leave the RfC cites as is, and use their "ref name="s to cite them again in other paragraphs. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I really didn't. It was never in the addition of the paragraph after the RFC and it was already present elsewhere before I started the latest round of edits search ref name="AMA" here. In fact the cause of the issue was another good faith user who combined the cites 2 weeks ago. [6] Anyway, I didn't start this section to go diff diving so hopefully this clears it up.

I was hoping to get some opinions on broad issues like Wikipedia:Article size (I am fine with it, but realise it is borderline) and missing info (maybe a definition section of what is a GMO, but that is covered in Genetic engineering). I am pretty happy with where we sit personally so if there are no other major concerns I will take a little break from it and then do a final copy-edit. I do not enjoy the busy-work of consistently formatting refs and am happy as long as the information is easy for readers to find. That is one of the reasons why I focus on GAs and not FAs. For those unfamiliar these are the criteria I am aiming for. AIRcorn  (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Given that the issue I raised became sort-of off-topic for the GA effort, please feel free, if you would like to, to collapse the discussion starting at my first comment and continuing through the first paragraph of your most recent comment here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I saw the updates just as I was getting away from the computer for awhile. I haven't had a chance to really dig into them all for potential trimming, etc., but overall they look like pretty good additions. I've been meaning to do a read through of the whole article sometime soon after the New Year, so I'll see what I can do to help before a GA review. The one that might get a little dicey, but needs to be addressed before GA is the definition of GMO especially in relation to gene editing, but also how it was a nebulous term scientifically before gene editing really came up. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 20:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply

It is briefly mentioned (two sentences) under regulation regarding the different take US has compared to EU. There is also the older meanings of GMO re traditional breeding that may need to be given context and still comes up at these pages every now and again, so maybe an Etymology section is needed. When I was writing this I was adding information as I found it and some is probably more important than others. I tried to keep it to themes and emphasised the research side more as it tends to get overlooked here and I didn't want this to become just another GM crop article. Also what I found interesting might not be great encyclopaedically. I have some ideas of what could be trimmed or maybe even combined, but will not prejudge you. Thanks for the help and thoughts, you too Trypto. AIRcorn  (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I'm glad that we are good on it. I'm going to mostly leave the GA to you and KofA and whoever else wants to do it, because my bandwidth for it is already a bit full: I'm helping get another page to FA, and the whole GM area has gotten to feel like "work" for me. So good luck, and let me know if there is something specific where I can help. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The recent addition of the Etylmology section looks pretty good. It's more comprehensive than the draft I had partially put together. I still have a few sources I have to dig through that I could add, and I'll take care of wrapping that and the overall read-through I mentioned tomorrow and Monday. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 02:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I am going to play with Template:Genetic engineering sidebar and update the Template:Genetic engineering over the next few days so hopefully I will keep out of your way. AIRcorn  (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't expect that to affect anything I'll be doing. Hopefully I'll have everything wrapped before Tuesday or close to it. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 05:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Aircorn, I just did my once over, and most anything I could think of wasn't really needed for fleshing out at this article in terms of GA assessment here afterall. Most things I initially had in mind as potential issues keep an eye out for are better addressed at the crops article and are either given just enough of a brief review here or aren't mentioned to avoid getting into the weeds. I'd be pretty comfortable seeing this nominated for GA as it stands. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 06:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Having a little bit of trouble parsing that, but get the bottom line that it is ready to go. Thanks for your read through, much appreciated. AIRcorn  (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Okay the nomination is up. It could take a while for it to be picked up, but if anyone is interested the page to watch is Talk:Genetically modified organism/GA1. AIRcorn  (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Why is this article protected from editing? 50.107.133.126 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC) reply

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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

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

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

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

• vital to the discovery and development of cures and treatments for many serious diseases. – I would be careful here. "Vital" seems not the the correct word, as there are other means of curing diseases, GMOs are not "vital" for this.
  • Changed to important and re wrote the sentence to emphasise that this refers to GMOs as the creation of model organisms for human diseases. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• says that the plants or animals – what about other lifeforms, such as bacteria and fungy? Maybe say "life forms" instead? Same issue repeats on several other locations.
  • Yeah that should cover all organisms. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• with genes by introduced, eliminated, or rearranged – something missing here?
  • Removed the "by". AIRcorn  (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• The term GMO originally was not used until it became common through popular media to the point even scientists began to use it. – Bit vague, when was it not used? Besides, any term would not be used before coming into use, so the sentence does not make a clear point.

This one was my doing, so I'll address it. Basically, GMO has not been a preferred term by scientists compared to genetically engineered organism as outlined in the rest of the paragraph, and GMO really wasn't used at the time. The sources are basically describing that GMO became more common in scientific literature after it caught on in popular culture despite the initial preference and precision issues. I've changed the text a bit and moved it behind the sentence talking about precision in terminology to make this a bit more clear. Let me know if something still isn't clear on that front. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 05:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• I would suggest to name the section "definition" instead of "etymology".

Done. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 05:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• This can be taken from a cell containing the gene – suboptimal wording, I suggest to simply write "This gene can be taken from a cell".
  • Done. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• "certain stresses (e.g. thermal or electric shock)." – maybe "(e.g. thermal stress or electric shock)"?
  • I can't think of or find any ther methods so got rid of the e.g and just mentioned those two methods. Used usually just in case and added a cite. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• inserted it into a plasmid and then induced another bacteria to incorporate the plasmid – "induced other bacteria" or "induced another bacterium
  • went with induced other bacteria as it would have been more than one AIRcorn  (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• engineered to produce human tissue plasminogen activator in 1987 – Maybe an explanation (what is tissue plasminogen activatior) would be good here.
  • Added a wikilink and short explanation. AIRcorn  (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• ice-minus strain – can you link or explain?
  • I go into more detail on this under bacteria so hope to just kept it general here. Went with just a strain of Pseudomonas syringae. Let me know if that works. AIRcorn  (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• The first genetically modified animal to be approved for food use was AquAdvantage salmon in 2015. – Approved in which country?
  • USA. Added a second sentence mentioning that they are raised in Panama as well AIRcorn  (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • FDA approved in the US, but as of Feb 2019 still not being SOLD in the US. Release to market got stalled in labeling law. Instead, first actual sales were in Canada, August 2017. I added refs to confirm both. Raised in Panama does not mean sold in Panama. And anyway, AquaBounty changed its mind and intends to produce fish for US in Indiana. For the moment, not allowed to move eggs from the egg facility in Canada, to US.
• Bacteria are the simplest model organism – Model organisms are species, but Bacteria is a large clade.
  • Reworded. AIRcorn  (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Most food-producing bacteria are lactic acid bacteria, and this is where the majority of research into genetically engineering food-producing bacteria has gone. – Maybe add which foods they produce?
  • I have some examples at the end of the paragraph. Do you think it needs more? AIRcorn  (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• reduce toxic byproduct production – is "reduce toxic byproducts" enough?
  • Don't quite follow this. AIRcorn  (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • I meant you could avoid repeating "product" if you would delete the word "production". -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 12:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Food products from genetically modified bacteria – again, I think we need to know which countries this applies to.
  • Best source I found was dated 2015 so used "as of". AIRcorn  (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Application of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and other bacteria can help protect crops from insect infestation and plant diseases – How does this work? How do you apply a bacterium? Do you mean specific genes or proteins taken from this bacterium?
  • This was just part of an introductory sentence into bacteria used in agriculture. It is application of the whole bacteria in a spray usually used by organic farmers. It is quite popular, or at least was. I think there are issues with the sun degrading it and rain washing it off, so not sure how effective it is. The genes taken from this bacterium form a large part of the GM crop section. I kept most of the info tied to that section. If it is less confusing I can move it down there, or just delete it as I am not talking about them as specific GMOs here. AIRcorn  (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• they can compete with the ice-plus bacteria – you write "the ice plus bacteria", but this term was not formerly mentioned, and deserves explanation and/or a link.
  • Its just a way to differentiate from the ice-minus strain. Will reword. AIRcorn  (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Heading Virus – Maybe in plural, Viruses?
  • Yeah, makes sense. AIRcorn  (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• set back the development of this approach for many years. When was that?
  • Added date of Jesse Gelsinger trial to sentence. AIRcorn  (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Herpes simplex viruses is a promising vector – mixes plural and singular
  • Went plural. AIRcorn  (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Another approach is to use vectors to create novel vaccines for diseases that have no vaccines available – How does this work? Maybe try to provide some general idea?
  • The original source was quite broad so found an example for tuberculosis (which is possibly the most important one). Don't really want to go into too much detail here as I am trying to keep it overviewish. It went to phase II trials, but although safe wasn't as effective as hoped. AIRcorn  (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Outside of biology scientists have used a genetically modified virus to construct a more environmentally friendly lithium-ion battery and other nanostructured materials. – Maybe a short explanation here to get an idea how it works?
  • Not my area, but I tried to explain it as best I could (had to try and understand it myself first). AIRcorn  (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• and as of 2016 two genetically modified yeasts involved in the fermentation of wine have been commercialised – again, in which country?
  • USA and Canada. AIRcorn  (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• to create new colours in plants – unprecise. Does it refer to flowers, or to colors of crops?
  • Flowers. AIRcorn  (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• It was the first plant to be genetically engineered – Tobaco is not an originally engineered plant. Maybe reword "It was the first plant to be altered using genetic engineering"?
  • Okay AIRcorn  (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• As such the transgenic tools and procedures are well established  – but only for tabacco? Maybe make this clear
  • Clarified. Arabidopsis is up there too, but this is made implied later.
• has abundant bioinformatic resources – I don't understand this.
  • Online databases and such. Have said this. AIRcorn  (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• (actually lavender or mauve) – please link these colors
  • Done. AIRcorn  (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• to produce greater volume and better products. – better is too vague and not neutral. There are many people who would not consider any GMO product as "better".
  • The more obvious advantage to moving pathways is to express greater amounts so removed the better products part. AIRcorn  (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• plants can modify the proteins post-translationally – maybe add an accessible explanation in brackets.
  • Found a better wikilink, Can add an example or explanation if you want, but would rather use wikilinks. AIRcorn  (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• user:Aircorn, very interesting, and important article. Looks very good. I copy edited as I went. More comments soon. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 20:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for doing this. I will work through these today and comment below each point. AIRcorn  (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • @ Jens Lallensack: I think I have either fixed all the raised issues or responded here. Sorry it took a bit longer than I expected. I really appreciate the review and look forward to the second half. I should warn you that my hands will be a bit tied when it comes to the controversy section (ARB enforced wording needs to be used there). Don't let that stop you making any suggestions as myself and a few other editors are familiar with what can and can't be done there. AIRcorn  (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
      • Great! Last comments below! -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 12:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Convenience break

• the end aims are much the same as plants – "as in plants"? "as for plants"? I'm not a native speaker.
  • As for sounds better to me. AIRcorn  (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• The development of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system has effectively halved the amount of time needed – How does that relate to the previous info? Does it allow to change stem cells directly?
  • Yep. It is pretty much a game breaker. Elucidated. AIRcorn  (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Human alpha-1-antitrypsin is another protein that has been produced and is used in treating humans with this deficiency – but is this also from the mentioned goat?
  • Yep. Clarified. AIRcorn  (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• GMO lifestock: You are listing several, but without stating if these have already been approved somewhere. I guess not?
  • Nope, unless you count salmon. Added a sentence to the first paragraph of the animal section to indicate what has been approved and where. AIRcorn  (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Text and refs added to indicate being sold in Canada as of 2017, not yet (as of Feb 2019) sold in US. David notMD ( talk) 01:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• to become publicly available as a pet – but not worldwide, right?
  • No. Like most of the others it is the US. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• The article is supposed to be in British English, right? Whatch out for American spellings, such as color.

I didn't notice British variants being used before, but in terms of WP:ENGVAR, the first usage I could find was generalize (as opposed to generalise) making the default American English and the most recent comment in 2014 I could find said American too. I can go through and standardize to American unless anyone has strong objections to this change? Kingofaces43 ( talk) 05:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I probably wrote 80% of the current article (if not more) and while not British, my native variant is closely related to that. As such my default spelling comes out. So many lame wars have been fought over what in the end is a relatively minor issue that if someone wants to enforce WP:Retain to an American version I am not going to to fight it. AIRcorn  (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I personally don't usually find it a big deal which one is used even if it's inconsistent (I didn't notice at all in my previous reviews), but I also saw a fair mix of both uses now that I look. You never know if someone might raise a fuss in the future on RETAIN though, so it'll save some hassle by going to American now since it'll be copy-edited now anyways. I'll take care of that in a bit. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• It obtained regulatory approval in 2015 – but where?
  • DavidMD has added some more info on the countries. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Transposons are well developed in Drosophila – what does "well developed" mean here? Maybe write "abundant" instead?
  • Not sure about abundant. I was trying to say that transposon editing techniques were well developed. Reworded. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• in its egg passed regulatory approval in 2015. – Where?
  • Another one for the US. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• are used in development biology – developmental biology research?
  • Done. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• nemotode – you consistently spell it like this, but isn't it "nematode"?
  • Changed to nematode. Nemotode looks to be a British spelling though I didn't know about until now. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• say that absent scientific evidence of harm even voluntary labeling is misleading – should it be "in the absence of scientific evidence"?
  • Both seem to read alright to me. I like the first one slightly better as it only has the one of and is slightly shorter. Not too fussed if somoene wants to change it though. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• The regulations section has very little on regulation of research. Do these regulation mean that certain nations are much more advanced in GMO research than others?
  • I have had a tremendous amount of difficulty finding sources on the regulation in lab as opposed to the release. When I wrote Regulation of genetic engineering the best source I found was from the University of Woolongong. I don't know if this information is just not easily available, is kept in house or is just flooded out by regulations involving the release of GMOs. It has been a little while since I searched for this so will give it another go now. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Okay found a few decent papers (-crops and -food in the search engine helped). Added quite a bit to the regulation article and a trimmed down version here. Hopefully this covers enough. Luckily the laboratory regulations are pretty consistent across all countries. AIRcorn  (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • As to whether some countries are more advanced than others, I have not really found anything useful to add here. Common sense would say that countries with less scientific funding in general would be behind, but that is not A GM thing in particular. The regulations for research appear pretty consistent across most major scientific players so I imagine the reulations themselves don't play much role in this. AIRcorn  (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• To get a more worldwide view, maybe mention the (apparently only three) countries where GMO foods are banned entirely?
  • Curious where you got the three number from, it may be outdated. Looking at the Genetic Literacy Project there are currently nine countries that ban the growing and importing GM food. I don't like using that as a source, but have no reason to doubt them. I will look for a better one. AIRcorn  (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Could not find anything suitable so used the Literacy one. If this is a problem I could use individual sources for each country. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Article is strongly focused on the US, but almost nothing on China, despite it being a major player in research. I wonder what the regulations are in China? Apparently labeling is mandatory, but research seems not to be as strongly regulated considering the resent human babies?
  • The babies were not approved (for want of a better word) so were done outside of the regulatory system. It does pose questions on their checks and balances though. It may take a while, but I will see what I can dig up. I can add some info on crops from Genetically modified food in Asia#China, but may struggle to find info on research. As to the US bias, they are the major pusher of the technology (in crops anyway) so it is mainly focused on them. I tried to keep the regulation as a contrast between Europe and the USA as they are probably the most conflicting in terms of regulations. If that isn't apparent then I will look at rewording it. AIRcorn  (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I am in two minds about this. I understand the world view concern, but the fact is most sources focuses on the US vs EU conflict. Also as far as I can tell most other countries seem to base their regulations from those ones. The He controversy is still too new to really get a gauge on regulation wise, but may in the future provide some content suitable for here. We don't mention the ethics or regulation of human genetic engineering, because until now (well really Lulu and Nana still need better confirmation) it has always been the realm of sci fi. I also find this whole regulatory issues very dry and don't really want to add too much on regulatory agencies and legislation to this page ( Regulation of genetic engineering is better suited to that). I could add the table I made at Genetic engineering here, but I feel I repeat that section too much already. I am going to leave this for now. Let me know if it is an issue that needs resolving and I will come back to it later. AIRcorn  (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Other ethical issues – the issues listed in the previous sentence are not (at least not all of them) ethical. I suggest to remove the "other".
  • Done. AIRcorn  (talk) 07:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Controversy section

• You state that there is no scientific evidence for negative impact on human health. But to be fair, there is evidence for other (e.g., environmental) concerns, such as gene flow. I think this evidence, especially regarding gene flow to other species, should be mentioned, with examples.
  • Most of that subject matter deals with Genetically modified crops, so I wonder if that would be a better question when that article is under GA review considering how the network of articles/daughter articles is set up? This one gets tricky because a lot of those "concerns" are WP:UNDUE or even WP:FRINGE depending on what's being asked. There have been talk page discussions about things like that in the past and this explains some of that. For your example, the risks of gene flow are basically no different between GMO or traditional breeding in the crop world at least (e.g., it doesn't matter whether herbicide tolerance came from traditional breeding or genetic engineering).

This sort of stuff has basically been set aside in the last paragraph of this article (and other articles) including some environmental things to "describe the controversy". I guess I'm not sure how much more could really be included at this broad overview article yet without first fleshing out more in the daughter/granddaughter articles before assessing the WP:SUMMARY here. Considering the potential legwork needed, maybe that's more relevant of the comprehensive scope for an FA instead of GA? Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Please consider all my points as mere suggestions for further improvement. Not everything is required for reaching GA, including this point. My personal goal is not to pass it as GA as fast as possible, but to help improving the article as much as possible. Please feel free to skip everything you feel unreasonable. But if you are planning to get the article to FAC at some point, I have the feeling that the "Controversy" section is the weakest part of the article, and should ideally be improved before submitting to FAC. My suggestion above was one, probably ill-conceived, attempt to get the section into the right direction. This controversy is for sure of high relevance (maybe not so much for science, but for society in general), and in my opinion could be fleshed out without violating Summary style. I'm really not sure what to do precisely. It somehow remains very general and vague, without really getting to the points. A clear structure is also difficult to spot (most of the section is about food, with some bits in-between about other concerns). Maybe try to discuss concerns point by point. One more point that you may want to consider:

• Although doubts have been raised,[315] most studies have found growing GM crops to be beneficial to farmers.[316][317][318] – "beneficial" is quite vague here. Using GM crops is arguably not beneficial for the farmer's health, as GM crops come in a package with pesticides. On the other hand, few would disagree that GM crops would be beneficial to the farmers as they increase yield. So why mention the farmers at all in the introductory paragraph? In my feeling the whole discussion revolves more around environmental impact and consumers health. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 09:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC) reply

No worries, I'm just feeling out what you were looking for along with some of the logistics of handling some of these topics in various depths. I'm mostly just trying to help wade through of the reasoning and history for the layout of this article and how it fits with the other articles. I'm not sure if this would be nominated for FA, but until it would be prepped for FA-like depth, I'd really only expect the gene flow topic to have a sentence or two at most on gene flow (currently mentioned in the controversy section) and more in the daughter articles. A bit more history on the controversy section is that it is meant to be vague as it gives brief mention of largely fringe viewpoints without going into depth or undue weight of those viewpoints while leaving more for Genetically modified food controversies. What you're seeing was an intent to balance describing the controversy with other policy, so while tweaking could be done, some vagueness was intended too.

For the sentence you mentioned, beneficial includes different aspects like financial, health, etc. in the cited sources. The health one is a big factor because the GM crops either have plant-produced insecticides or herbicide tolerance. The former replaces foliar insecticides, which are often a health risk for farmers, with one farmers generally don't have to interact with that also doesn't affect human health. The latter for herbicides currently uses a much less toxic herbicide that still gets sprayed like any other pesticide, but that's replacing older more toxic herbicides. Your comments are reminding me of a few areas here that could be strengthened, so I'll see if I can do some tweaks in this area in the next day or two to tackle some vague wording. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 03:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I tried to streamline the controversy section a bit. It's going to be a sort of catchall either way, so if anyone else has ideas, it might be worth trying them. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 05:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I undid one of your edits as I think it is important to mention the secondary pest concern. I will expand on it when I get time. I am not sure about removing the health introductory sentence either. From my understanding health is the major concern anti-GM groups focus on so deserves a bit more weight. I think it is important for the narrative that we outline what the concerns are before we dispel them. That is followed by the environment, which although it gets less mentioning in the media has more evidence in the reliable literature. My general thinking weight wise is two paragraphs on health (one covered by the arb wording), two on environment (one focusing on gene flow - which is probably the most significant), one paragraph covering the other issues (IP, religous etc) and one paragraph giving us an intro to the opposition (including the groups involved). AIRcorn  (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC) reply

No worries. The secondary pest thing isn't really unique to GMOs per se (open a niche with resistant plants or other control methods, GM or not, and something can still fill it) and probably fits better under the crop section, but I'm ok with your current version as is in terms of the GA nom at least. No strong feelings on any of my edits in the section really.

For a bit more clarification, the introductory sentence removal was meant to cut down on redundancy since the health stuff was more or less covered by the arb language, but it was just my stab at trimming if it worked. I also added the Kniss source in terms of parity because the Gilbert source isn't peer-reviewed (i.e., written only by a science journalist as opposed to a statement by an actual weed scientist that is usually considered reliable when attributed). There's more to flesh out on the gene flow topic to make sure everything is WP:DUE when mentioned, but it's also not something I'd fuss over any more for the GA at least. I agree with you that I'd rather see the controversy stuff integrated into the article and remove the section (and maybe get rid of some headaches trying to work with that material), but that's probably something for another day after GA. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 21:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Sorry it took a while to get down to here. While many of the agricultural issues are common to all farming (monocultures, pesticide use, etc), they are brought up a lot with regards to this technology. Maybe that paragraph needs to state that somewhere. I would love to move many of these specific concerns to the crop section, but the same could be said about the health paragraph (fish aside) and no one is going to touch that. Crops is mentioned as the major concern in the lead and intro of this section, so I don't think there are Due concerns giving it extra weight. I might include a sentence on containment of research GMOs somewhere to broaden the scope a bit if I can find a decent source. I actually misread your use of that parity source and see now it was for the preceding sentence. I still feel we need a stronger source to say that rates of weeds have not increased. I would be surprised if there was not a journal article on this.

As to the health info, my main problem is the constraints placed upon us by the GMORFC. It makes writing a flowing article a bit difficult (i.e. the regulatory sentence would fit in better above and there is no real lead in). In the end it is doable, and if we hadn't got closure on that I would not even be attempting this. A single paragraph could work, but it would need that one to be changed slightly. I think allergenicity needs to be mentioned as a concern, along with HGT to humans (although less so). Pusztai and Seralini could be something else that is linked (I think we did it well somewhere else). Obviously they need to be balanced with how much of a risk there actually is. I am of the opinion that not mentioning something due to unscientific concerns just makes the problem worse. Better to mention it and then explain the science. It does get a bit tricky for overview articles, but we all knew this was going to be a difficult section to get right. AIRcorn  (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Part of my removals were just for streamlining with prejudice against fleshing those topics out if they fit better, so that all sounds pretty good. Allergenicity definitely can be pretty easily addressed in a WP:DUE fashion by mentioning that allergens are screened for as part of the regulatory process (i.e., adding a peanut allergen protein isn't going to get approved). For HGT, I’m still looking for good sources we can use here (I usually deal with the primary literature on this subject), but here’s a recent example of a primary source at least I have watch listed that's at least better quality in a parity sense. There are some older reviews that basically say HGT is not a significant risk to human or environmental health either. I’d still have to think about how to tackle this one too (maybe next week when I’m not on mobile). I don’t see this as something that would necessarily hinder the GA process and could be dealt with at a later time, so there doesn’t need to be a rush on this, but there’s also the now is as good as time as any aspect too. I'm getting more drive to really dig into developing this topic again, so I'd be willing to help out in either case. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 17:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I suppose it depends how deep down the rabbit hole we go. There is the Brazilian nut and the pea which were self regulated to a degree. Plus you have the option of potentially removing allergens through GE. I added a source saying they are tested for toxicity and allerginicity. HGT to humans is overstated by many so not sure we need to give it more than a passing mention. Of the two studies often cited one is misunderstood and the other would be interpreted as background by most researchers. I added the older source you mentioned, if a newer one comes up we can replace it. I think we cover gene flow to other similar (or wild-type) species adequately now, but feel free to make some adjustments. Overall I am pretty happy with our coverage of crops, although I might look for some non-food controversies. AIRcorn  (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC) reply

The controversy sections are the biggest headache in all these articles. They take up most of the talk page discussions and have burnt out (sometimes unwillingly) many editors. I agree it is the weakest section here, and it is likely to remain so no matter what we do as there are so many different opinions on the topic of GMO safety and what is due weight. I think it is best to keep this as general as possible and not get too tied down in the arguments and counter arguments. We have Genetically modified food controversies for that. If it was completely up to me I would get rid of the controversy section altogether and incorporate it into other sections, but there are probably fair points to keep it in given the feelings and coverage of this issue.

I feel we cover gene flow well enough, I could potentially explain the Mexican maize example as it is probably the most well known. I should probably do the Monarch Butterflies for the same reason too.

Yeah I wasn't sure where to put the farmer info as it is often disputed as to whether there is any actual benefit to them from growing GM crops. It does look out of place; I will move it to the crop section where it should fit in better.

Personally I am not interested in getting these articles to FA level. I feel the amount of fine-tuning needed is not the most efficient use of my time. I could probably get half a dozen of these articles to GA standard in the time it takes to get one to FA.

Anyway, thanks for your patience, this section could take a while to get acceptable to everyone. AIRcorn  (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• That's it. Good overview overall. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 12:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Forgotten comments

My apologies, I forgot two:

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

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

• @ Jens Lallensack and Kingofaces43: I think I hve gone through most of the comments now. Sorry it took a while. Let me know what you think. AIRcorn  (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't have anything to add at this point. Your changes all look good from what I see. The controversy addition looks good too (notable opinions put in the right place etc.). Kingofaces43 ( talk) 20:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I think you did an amazing job, the whole thing is much better now, including the "controversy" section. Happy to pass the well-deserved GA. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 18:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC) reply

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove this website: wple.net/plek/numery_2007/numer-10-2007/908-912-koszowskigoniewicz-czogala.pdf from article. This is new website about nutres. Protector164 ( talk) 10:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I've retrieved a Wayback Machine archive from 2013 for this page and amended it to the citation. MagPlex ^{( talk · contribs)} 16:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello,

Shouldn't it be "genetically-modified organism", as "genetically" modifies (heh) "modified"? I don't know whether or not I'm right about that. Any input is appreciated. Thanks, DesertPipeline ( talk) 04:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Has been without hyphen for years. Assume there is a consensus. David notMD ( talk) 18:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

See MOS:HYPHEN #3, bullet 4. Generally no hyphens after -ly adverbs because they are already assumed to be modifying the subsequent word. – CWenger ( ^ • @) 19:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Good point, CWenger. I hadn't read that. Regards, DesertPipeline ( talk) 11:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

During my research on crops and their modification it should be noted under controversies the companies that drive these controversial topics and how they are involved in the process of GMOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantasukra ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, I would like to add this into the controversies section.

The companies involved in the controversies how they function in the process of GMOs and chemicals tied to crop GMOs.

"Monsanto and Bayer have become one of the largest companies that control the seed and pesticide market in both the united states and Europe now that their deal is complete.  These are one of the major players in the GMO world that drive new innovative ways to have new GMOs this also includes Pesticides and herbicides that are used in crops."

-- Shantasukra ( talk) 01:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I have removed the addition. The generalizations are not in line with how sourced statements typically appear on wikipedia, and overall language is vague, "new innovative ways to have new GMOs" particularly so. I see that you are a student editor, and I suggest that you choose a different area of focus. If you contact the wikiEdu staff assigned to your class, they can help you switch. GMO-related pages are an area of particular controversy on wikipedia and subject to WP:1RR. Most GMO-related articles are also fairly mature articles, and are going to be hard for a new editor to make improvements to even apart from the 1RR issue. Dialectric ( talk) 23:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply