== Correction == 

 Hi Groupuscule. I recently got around to reading your GMO subpage, and I noticed that you quote one of my diffs. You wrote, "Arc de Ciel has dimissed Lotter's work because it...[might] not have undergone peer review by scientists." This is incorrect; I did not say that your citation was not (or might not have been) peer-reviewed, and in fact I said that it was. My direct quote is, "It appears to me that your first source [i.e. Lotter] is from a peer-reviewed journal, which is a good sign." As I said, the problem is that the journal is in the wrong scientific field; a sociology journal isn't a very good source on biology. 

 Please correct this. For reference, the full quote (including both your comment and my reply) is as follows. The relevant part of my reply is the first paragraph.  

  
 * This FAQ is condescending and disrespectful of the many Wikipedia editors (not to mention scientists) who don't agree that there is a "broad scientific consensus" on GMOs. Numerous scientific articles suggesting the contrary have been disregarded. Here is an excellent paper that directly addresses the fake consensus being promoted by the biotech industry. Here is some helpful secondary literature on that paper.    

  
 ::Hi Groupuscule - thanks for the links! I see that your understanding of Wikipedia sourcing is improving. (No sarcasm - I consider that a good thing.) It appears to me that your first source is from a peer-reviewed journal, which is a good sign. However, it is a sociology journal, which is the wrong scientific field. (It's common for fringe authors to publish in journals whose reviewers lack the expertise for proper peer-review, but of course that's not necessarily what's happening here.) I'm not familiar with the author or the quality of the journal itself, so I'll avoid commenting on it other than that, but if everything checks out, then it might be RS for some article content, since controversy includes sociological aspects. (Note that RS status can change depending on what statement is being supported.) If so, we can definitely discuss additions to the article based on this source (preferably in a different section preferably, so we don't interrupt this discussion). 

 ::However, even if this source is acceptable (even if it were in a biological journal, actually), it wouldn't be sufficient to overturn the "scientific consensus" statement. To challenge this statement, you would need to present sources of equivalent reliability to those in the lead, which include direct statements from major medical and scientific organizations. Also, remember that the scientific consensus described in the lead only refers to specific health claims and is not a "consensus on GMOs" - in fact, the topic is so broad that I don't think it's clear what that would mean. Other GMO issues may or may not have scientific consensus depending on what the issue is.