Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/FAQ

Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page Genetically modified food controversies. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please update this material when needed.

This FAQ can be included on a talk page using {{FAQ|quickedit=no|collapsed=no}}.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Is the article biased?

A1: Wikipedia’s official neutral point of view policy requires us to treat views on various subjects proportionally to those views' mainstream acceptance in the relevant academic field. Some views about GM foods are not supported by the relevant field (biology), and the article needs to reflect this.

Q2: Are GM foods dangerous to human health?

A2: The scientific consensus is that GM foods currently on the market pose no more risk than their conventional counterparts. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food. This conclusion has been reached by multiple independent reliable sources, including major scientific organizations and most regulatory agencies responsible for food safety.

However, it is not possible to make a blanket statement about future GM foods. As a result, GM foods are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and foods currently on the market have gone through regulatory and testing procedures evaluating whether the products are substantially equivalent to non-GM products. The view that these existing products are dangerous to human health is currently a fringe position in the academic community.

The content in this Wikipedia article describing the scientific consensus, and the sourcing for it, was reviewed by the Wikipedia community in an open request for comment on three separate occasions. The first RfC (July–August 2013) evaluated a previous version of the language,^{[n 1]} concluding that that the statement and sourcing complied with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and could be included in our articles. A second RfC about a similar version (May–July 2015) was inconclusive, primarily for procedural reasons,^{[n 2]} and after considerable discussion ultimately led to a third RfC during June-July 2016. This resulted in the language currently used across Wikipedia articles related to genetically modified food. Because of the extent of the disputes leading up to the 2016 RfC, additional changes to this part of the article must follow one of the specific procedures described here. If you have a new proposal, the first step for each of these mechanisms is generally a detailed discussion with other editors at one or more of the relevant talk pages.

^ Specifically, the wording at the time was "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food."
^ The formal result was "no consensus," a technical term that refers to an RfC outcome and not to the use of the word "consensus" in the articles. This outcome means that previous results remain in effect. Additionally, this comment by the closing administrator clarified that the evaluation of the merits was similar to the first RfC.

Q3: Aren't there studies that say current GM foods are dangerous to eat?

A3: There are a small number, but the overwhelming majority of studies have found no safety concerns. The exceptions do not invalidate the scientific consensus, because no scientific consensus is absolute. Among other things, it is normal for scientific experiments to occasionally return both false positives and false negatives.

If you have a study that you think should be included in the article, please make sure that it is peer-reviewed and has been discussed in medically reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, it is unlikely to have sufficient prominence to be discussed in the article. Note that information may have sufficient prominence for the Genetically modified food controversies article, but not for other GM-related articles, because the controversy article covers social aspects in greater depth. Additionally, statements which represent minority views should be placed in the context of the mainstream view. You are welcome to ask for assistance from more experienced editors on the talk page.

For the studies by Pusztai and Séralini, see Pusztai affair and Séralini affair.

Q4: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it?

A4: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of verifiability, reliability, and no original research. Because of Wikipedia’s position as a trusted reference work, evidence for health-related claims must also follow the higher standard of medical reliability. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page, but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of GM foods, but the article talk page is not such a forum.

[1] Specifically, the wording at the time was "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food."

[2] The formal result was "no consensus," a technical term that refers to an RfC outcome and not to the use of the word "consensus" in the articles. This outcome means that previous results remain in effect. Additionally, this comment by the closing administrator clarified that the evaluation of the merits was similar to the first RfC.

[n 1]

[n 2]