This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
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. PMID24041244. 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. PMC3120150. PMID21546547. 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).
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. PMID21296423. 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. ISSN0738-8551. PMID26767435. 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.
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.
^"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])
^"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.
^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.
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.
Denial as a political and defense strategy is both IRL widespread and non properly covered on Wikipedia ifaik. Trump, but also Biden, Macron, Putin, all use it to spread doubt event when solid observables (=facts) are presented. The communicative, political, strategic side of denial deserves better coverage. Yug(talk) 🐲 11:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC) (Note: I keep this article creation in mind for myself as well but I'am already loaded with other articles)[reply]
User:Entropy1963 has made it clear by their last comment that they’re dragging this out because they’re personally offended. Per, WP:BLUDGEON and WP:SEALION, I don’t see any point in letting this keep going. If there’s unrelated disputes here that need to be addressed, please consider starting a new discussion Dronebogus (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Food, agriculture related ecology and dietary health are more complex topics than the suggestion in this article that opposition to GMOs is denialist implies.
Evidence of recent findings concerning the impact of varied diet on human microbiome diversity and consequent health outcomes implies an emergent and relevant area of knowledge. GMO cropping systems seem likely to come under this developing area of scientific scrutiny. Application of the precautionary principle until more is known can't impartially be described as 'denialist'.
Some of this food impacted gut biome emerging research is linked here: [1]
Therefore, this section of the denialism article doesn't appear to belong here, as if it remains, inclusion will reasonably be considered controversial until a wider consensus can be achieved.
The article already says, There is a scientific consensus [..] that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. The article you linked says nothing about GMOs in general, it does not even contain the words "GMO", "genetic" or "modified" in any combination, so there seems to be no contradiction or even relation to the fact that resistance to GMOs is denialism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is correct but not persuasive.
Only the fact that “each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction” is enough to get this example away from the article about Denialism.
Only for this reason this section needs to be removed from the article about Denialism for denying, or challenging, ambiguous concepts is not Denialism but a healthy standpoint.
Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not on the mere existence of a discussion on some other Wikipedia talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only the fact that “each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction” is enough to get this example away from the article about Denialism Reliable sources disagree with you. Reliable sources win.
check this unbelievable case You are arguing that something may be dangerous because something else turned out to be dangerous. That is whataboutism, purely nonsensical reasoning, which is typical for denialists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Radioactive isotope exposure has nothing to do with GMO and food testing and approval methods avoids using the general population as a trial experiment. If there are actual adverse effects with a product, it can be evaluated and recalled. The denialism includes ignorance and/or dismissing all of that. The current section could use improvements in my opinion but appears to have its place in this article. Anti-GMO arguments have been pushed a long time without credible evidence to kill the science. Please read the infobox at the top of this talk page reflecting Wikipedia's experience with the topic... —PaleoNeonate – 11:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read the article “Straw man” because attacking another argument than the one I posted is “typical” for “denialists”.
I’m neither against GM food nor against technology. I’m against people who call denialism something that it's not yet a FACT but an issue controversial enough to involve governments and millions of people.
It wasn’t me who wrote “each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction” but the author of the article and the “reliable sources” you're all referring to.
My reference to the “Radium Girls” doesn’t mean that “Radioactive isotopes” have anything to do with GMOs. It means that when ignorance about the possible negative effects of a recent technology or whatever new discovery is not out of the question, the technology cannot be called with 100% certainty safe so to call those who challenge it denialists.
Anyway, I’m giving up on my argument!
It was my mistake after a decade to get again involved with editing Wikipedia. Endless discussions about issues that are self-contradicting yet invisible to anyone who has set up his mind to ignore the obvious. And the obvious is that you can't describe as denialism something that is NOT YET A SOLID FACT but controversial on a massive scale. Entropy1963 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m neither against GM food nor against technology. Nobody said you were. Your Radium Girls whataboutism does not make much sense other than as pseudo reasoning against GMO. It is not our fault that you did not write clearly.
It wasn’t me who wrote “each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction” I did not say you did. You wrote is enough to get this example away from the article about Denialism. That is the part RS disagree with you on, because they say opposition to GMO is denialism.
you can't describe as denialism something that is NOT YET A SOLID FACT but controversial on a massive scale But we can describe as denialism something that is false according to scientific consensus, even if you personally are not aware of that consensus and falsely believe it is "controversial on a massive scale". --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I informed Entropy1963 about the RfC. That RfC consensus is binding on the English Wikipedia, as a "discretionary sanctions" aka "contentious topics" determination growing out of the GMO ArbCom case. It's not just some discussion on some other talk page, it is binding. In fact, there's a notice of it near the top of this talk page. So removing or altering that specific content without going through the proper procedures will lead to WP:AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respond to Hob Gadling:
Do you know Aristarchus from Samos? If not serch Wikipedia to find out. He was claiming some two and a half thousand years ago that the earth goes around the sun but his argument was buried for millennia because there was “scientific consensus” (let alone “obvious” observation) that the sun goes around the earth.
Do you know Clair Cameron Patterson? If not search Wikipedia to find out. By reading about him, you may also understand how perspectives which support huge organisations can achieve “scientific consensus” status.
But you will accuse me again of “whataboutism” failing to understand that this page is about Denialism and not the safety of GMOs.
On a planet where the human population skyrockets, GMOs will be the only solution to starvation, as was the case with the “Haber process” for the production of ammonia.
But this page is about the derogatory and pejorative term Denialism and not about the safety of GMOs and my objection has nothing to do with GMOs.
But if you could understand this, you would have also understood everything else I wrote but you didn’t, eventually blaming me for your inability to understand: “It is not our fault that you did not write clearly.” Entropy1963 (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You made it a chatroom by focusing your replies to other than improving the article matters. From your first reply already you accused me of being a denialist.
The juxtaposition of There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food [etc] with Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe is not helpful. The former does not make it abundantly clear 1. whether we're talking about health risks directly caused by genetic modification, or ones resulting from industrial practices associated with GMO crops in general; or 2. whether "risk to human health" refers to safety or to something like nutrition. Similarly, the latter does not explain whether this perception is directed at the process of genetic modification itself, or at associated factors such as pesticide usage. Since the stack of sources looks so exhausting, I haven't yet been able to determine what the section is actually trying to say, but it's clear to me that the current wording is too vague, and it might be misleading. small jarstc09:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The community already vetted that language thoroughly, and in that discussion, it was important to outline the dichotomy between just how misinformed the public is vs. the scientific consensus. Part of those statements are actually tied to pesticide use related to GMOs too, so it is supposed to be somewhat more encompassing in that last line.
That does get into a good point though that denialist groups in this subject have been groundshifting a bit in recent years. Instead of denying the consensus of the safety of GM food directly, they've been shifting to things like, "Oh no, we really meant pesticide use this whole time." while still spreading basically the same myths. There's also a lot of misinformation that goes on in the periphery of GMOs because of that, usually the exact opposite of what scientists actually have to say on it. Not really much for us to update on here though. KoA (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, as a reader, the text of the article does not have any of the clarity of the exposition given in your reply. But I am far less equipped to sort it out than you seem to be. small jarstc15:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is one thing to deny science and another thing to be cautious.
GMO technology is not around long enough to establish itself as “safe in the long term”, both for the environment and human nutrition. If I had the choice to buy at the same price an organic food or GMO, I'd choose organic but not because I deny science.
I quote this from the article in Wikipedia (Genetically modified organism): ”As late as the 1990s gene flow into wild populations was thought to be unlikely and rare, and if it were to occur, easily eradicated. It was thought that this would add no additional environmental costs or risks – no effects were expected other than those already caused by pesticide applications. However, in the decades since, several such examples have been observed.”
I tried to make a point but obviously, I failed.
Denialism is a derogatory term and I don’t believe that people like me can be called denialists and for this reason, I’m requesting again that this example should be removed from an article that has nothing to do with GMOs but with the extremely negative stance in life to deny facts. Entropy1963 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Herbalism is a mixture of genuine and bogus remedies. TCM is 90% junk that’s useless at best and dangerous at worst. Alternative medicine is a huge field that can range from genuinely helpful to outright deadly. “Millenia of experimentation” means nothing without the scientific method. There’s no connection between any of these to “denialism”. Dronebogus (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus, exactly, as @HandthatFeeds said, it's just "medicine", I really don't think it's useful enough (IMHO), in fact it has absolutely no connection, unless they have connection, and we don't know regard it (Probably it's gonna take a while to reach in some consensus, anyway, gonna wait) 177.105.90.20 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can gather from what you said, you basically meant that alternative medicine can be both helpful and dangerous, "de facto", it really depends on how it is used, if it is used on manners, Ok!, if it is not, it's totally dangerous for humankind, and with it, we see how good and not-good can walk each other, and how that's REALLY not good at all. 177.105.90.20 (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: I used the wording "Rejecting scientific or historical consensus" rather than "Denial of scientific or historical consensus" because WP:SDDUPLICATE discourages repeating information: "avoid duplicating information that is already in the title" and because this clarifies what is meant by "denial" in this context. Not a big deal, but I thought it was clearer. --Macrakis (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining this to me. I didn't know about SDDUPLICATE. I too think this is not a big deal, and I don't want to make a big deal out of it. Just as fyi, I'll explain my reasoning this way. "Denial" might, sort of, be information that is in the title, but arguably it's just a word that is in the title, so I don't think that redundancy between the sd and the title is too much of a problem. And just as there is a slight difference in meaning between "denial" and "disagreement" (one can disagree with something without denying its reality), that difference also exists between "denial" and "rejecting", so I felt like "rejecting" was very slightly inaccurate. But honestly, I don't think this matters very much, so if after reading that you still would prefer that I self-revert, I happily will. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just as fyi, I'll explain my reasoning this way. "Denial" might, sort of, be information that is in the title, but arguably it's just a word that is in the title, so I don't think that redundancy between the sd and the title is too much of a problem. And just as there is a slight difference in meaning between "denial" and "disagreement" (one can disagree with something without denying its reality), that difference also exists between "denial" and "rejecting", so I felt like "rejecting" was very slightly inaccurate. But honestly, I don't think this matters very much, so if after reading that you still would prefer that I self-revert, I happily will. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
