Genetically modified organism

{{GA|18:27, 21 Feuary 2019 (UTC)|topic=Natural Sciences|page=1|oldid=884450884}}
{{notaforum}}
{{talk header}} {{WPBS|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Genetics |class=GA |importance=top |imageneeded= |imagedetails= |unref=|genetic engineering=yes

User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader =

aan

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 3

|minthreadsleft = 7

|minthreadstoarchive = 5

|algo = old(180d)

|archive = Talk:Genetically modified organism/Archive %(counter)d

GM cattle, modified to improve digestion

Do these exist ? See Talk:Environmental_impact_of_meat_production

KVDP

14:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

KVDP Generally, Reference desk is the place to ask general questions, as opposed to discussing improvement of this page. For our purposes here, it depends on whether there are reliable sources about GM cattle. (You could try your preferred search engine.) I haven't looked, but I suspect not. --Tryptofish23:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

Change "In the US, by 2014, 94% of the planted area of soybeans, 96% of cotton and 93% of corn were genetically modified varieties." to "In the US, by 2014, 94% of soybean varieties, 96% of cotton varieties and 93% of corn varieties were genetically modified."

The source clearly states that the percentages in the excel are a percentage of varieties, not acreage: "Many people are interested in information about global genetically engineered (GE) acreage. USDA does not collect these data." Countraymond21:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked carefully at the source. Insofar as I can tell, the sentence that you quote is about how USDA collects data for the US, but not for the rest of the world, ie, "globally". The first spreadsheet in the source actually labels the data as "acreage". It also would not make sense that the data would be as percentages of all varieties, because it would be difficult to quantify the true total number of varieties that might be found throughout the world – after all, it's not just a matter of counting the items for sale in a seed catalog. --Tryptofish22:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

Hello, this is the current text that I suggest be changed:

"A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques (i.e., a genetically engineered organism). GMOs are used to produce many medications and genetically modified foods and are widely used in scientific research and the production of other goods. The term GMO is very close to the technical legal term, 'living modified organism', defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates international trade in living GMOs (specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology").

A more specifically defined type of GMO is a "transgenic organism." This is an organism whose genetic makeup has been altered by the addition of genetic material from an unrelated organism. This should not be confused with the more general way in which "GMO" is used to classify genetically altered organisms, as typically GMOs are organisms whose genetic makeup has been altered without the addition of genetic material from an unrelated organism."

Reasoning for Suggested Edit:

The terms "GMO", "genetically engineered", and "transgenic" are "'not"' interchangeable, as they mean separate things. Several sources, listed below, choose to make a distinction between the term "GMO" and "Transgenic".

- A GMO is any organism in which a modification to the DNA has occurred. This means spontaneous mutations that occur in the wild, cross pollination, and genetic engineering are all methods by which modifications to DNA can occur. GMOs can occur in nature or be man-made.

- A genetically engineered organism is an organism that has had foreign DNA added, native DNA removed, or native DNA added through the use of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering can be used to move DNA between related species (cisgenic) or to delete DNA within an organism. In either of these scenarios, no foreign DNA is being added to the organism and therefore it cannot be considered "transgenic", but the organism has been genetically engineered.

- A transgenic organism "specifically" refers to an organism whose genome contains foreign DNA from an unrelated species that was introduced through the use of genetic engineering.

So all transgenic organisms are GMOs, but not all GMOs are transgenic organisms, despite the misuse of the terms by the public and the media.

The suggested edit is as follows:

"A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered either through natural hybridization, natural mutation, selective breeding, mutation breeding, or through genetic engineering. GMOs are used to produce many medications and genetically modified foods and are widely used in scientific research and the production of other goods. The term GMO is very close to the technical legal term, 'living modified organism', defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates international trade in living GMOs (specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology").

A more specifically defined type of GMO is a "transgenic organism." This is an organism whose genetic makeup has been altered by the addition of genetic material from an unrelated organism. The term "transgenic organism" is not synonymous with the term "GMO" as not all genetically modified organisms are transgenic, that is, not all genetically modified organisms contain DNA from unrelated species."

Sources:

North Carolina State Extension Service:

https://agbiotech.ces.ncsu.edu/q1-what-is-the-difference-between-genetically-modified-organisms-and-genetically-engineered-organisms-we-seem-to-use-the-terms-interchangeably/

GMO Answers:

https://gmoanswers.com/ask/whats-difference-between-transgenic-and-genetically-modified

United States Department of Agriculture Glossary of Biotechnology Terms:

https://www.usda.gov/topics/biotechnology/biotechnology-glossary

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report Genetically Engineered Crops - Experiences and Prospects (free download) glossary on page 579

https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/ Jwindha14:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that imprecise term GMO is used even in scientific papers (though I know quite a few professors who actively discourage that in peer-review). We would need to pull more sources together than this from other regulatory agencies, etc. to describe the scientific definition, but also deal with how the public uses the term GMO versus what it means in reality. It would actually be quite a bit of work to tackle this subject with more than just this edit. Kingofaces4315:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No such thing as &quot;unrelated organisms&quot;

"...an unrelated organism" I'm not sure what that means, or whether it is a meaningful distinction, as all (or possibly most all) organisms on Earth are related. You can talk about "degree of relationship" defined by some criteria indicating generations of separation, such as the percentage of DNA pairs in common, but you cannot accurately say that any two organisms on Earth are "unrelated". Referring to organisms as unrelated flies in the face of everything that we currently understand about evolution of life on Earth. Furthermore, the same molecular engineering techniques can be used to transfer genes between naturally interbreeding organisms (closely related, same species, same population, even siblings), using the same techniques as between organisms that don't normally breed or interact in nature. More generally, the term "Genetically Modified Organism", doesn't really distinguish the technology of molecular engineering, as there is no existing genetically unmodified organism, modification being the essence of evolution; and that every cultivar, Heritage or GMO, is "humanly modified," either intentionally or unintentionally (the moment humans start harvesting a plant or animal, they're modifying the genetic characteristic of that organism). --Catrachos03:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Genetically modified organism. Please take a moment to review https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prevoldid=792407274 my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit x this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://jag.igr.poznan.pl/2007-Volume-48/1/pdf/2007_Volume_48_1-47-60.pdf

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102194844/http://www.idpublications.com/journals/PDFs/CIMID/CIMID_MostDown_1.pdf to http://www.idpublications.com/journals/pdfs/cimid/cimid_mostdown_1.pdf

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130216041212/http://www.united-academics.org/magazine/health-medicine/killing-liver-cancer-with-a-genetically-engineered-virus/ to http://www.united-academics.org/magazine/health-medicine/killing-liver-cancer-with-a-genetically-engineered-virus/

Corrected formatting/usage for http://r2m.nus.edu.sg/cos/o.x?c=%2Fr2m%2Fpagetreefunc=viewrid=5858

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oxitec.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/OXITEC-Newsletter-March-11-Final.pdf

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326015714/http://ideaireland.org/library/idea-position-on-genetically-modified-foods/ to http://ideaireland.org/library/idea-position-on-genetically-modified-foods/

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot "'InternetArchiveBot"' 10:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Fresh review which states &quot;no scientific consensus&quot; over the GMO safety

There is fresh review in Food and Chemical Toxicology http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691517303411 Aristidis M.Tsatsakis et al. Impact on environment, ecosystem, diversity and health from culturing and using GMOs as feed and food.

It states "It is clear that the issue regarding toxicity of GM food and feed is not over and a consensus has not appeared" "The current range of toxicity tests present many limitations such as limited period of exposure and are strictly case speciﬁc. ... In such a situation, the current range of testing should be sufﬁciently criticized ". .... "It is also clearly necessary to focus the attention of policy makers, regulatory authorities, governments, and GM-releasing companies on the need to examine and authenticate the possible long term unexplored effects, risks and damages to ecosystems, biodiversity, and health prior to the release of any GM food or feed. Labeling should be mandatory and should be considered as a basic consumer right "

So I think current mention in gmo-related articles about consensus is incorrect Cathry17:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A handful of researchers publishing against consensus doesn't invalidate it. That's not how scientific consensus works. Their concerns may be valid, but giving undue weight to specific viewpoints in the encyclopedia isn't neutral. The Controversy section does note on some things, like that each GM food needs to be tested and that notable organizations (including the Union of Concerned Scientists) aren't completely "convinced". – Rhinopiasnbsp;(talk) 18:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

ec

Thank you for bringing this source forward. As you can see from the notice at the top of this talk page, there are very specific rules that must be followed in the event that any of the language about this issue might undergo a change. I've looked at the paper abstract, and it appears to be to be in a legitimate scientific journal, and the abstract says very clearly that the authors reject the idea that there is a scientific consensus. I did a superficial check of the author affiliations, and they seem to be located at universities, albeit minor ones in mostly third world countries. Here are the websites of the first author http://aristsatsakis.com/, second author https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Muhammad_Amjad_Nawaz, and senior (last) author http://prabook.com/web/person-view.html?profileId=440438. I don't know anything about their "political" (for lack of a better word that I can think of) views about GMOs. What do other editors think? Does this source rise to the level of requiring a revision? --Tryptofish18:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: The article appears to cover a lot of areas other than safety "as food", such as environmental effects, that are distinct from the page content that is specifically about the safety of eating these crops, so I think we need to go past the paywall to assess exactly where the authors do or do not agree with the scientific consensus. --Tryptofish18:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Article available at ResearchGate. Cathry18:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The institutions the authors are associated with is likely because of the funding for the research, which apparently is a grant from the Korea Food Drug Administration and also support from the Russian Scientific Foundation. I don't think that we can judge the political motivations of researchers and assume they are reflected in peer-reviewed publications they are participating in, because that undermines the legitimacy of scientific publications. (Obviously, unless they have clear agendas that they have been publicly criticized for and their publications have been retracted as in https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/02/lancet-retracts-mmr-paper these shenanigans.)

http://aristsatsakis.com/images/stories/PdFs/2017/Impact%20on%20environment,%20ecosystem,%20diversity%20and%20health%20from%20culturing%20and%20using%20GMOs%20as%20feed%20and%20food.pdf The article seems to be primarily about environmental concerns, however, the last sentence of the conclusion is surprisingly "Labeling should be mandatory and should be considered as a basic consumer right."rp|118 I don't see any actual aggregations of data in this (just regulatory things), but I am not a researcher in this field so I don't have the authority to claim whether or not their conclusions are supported.

Either way, this publication is very doubtfully going to be significant enough—being so small in scope in comparison—to draw enough support to alter the summarized text from the RfC. – Rhinopiasnbsp;(talk) 19:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

There is another review stating clearly about no scientific consensus - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0162243915598381 Sheldon Krimsky. An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment It is mentioned in current wording references, but is hidden. And there are other publications which don't use word "consensus", but demand more long-term research or/and reject "substantial equivalence concept". For example. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412014002669 I.M.Zdziarski et al. M crops and the rat digestive tract: A critical review Cathry19:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

This isn't the forum for general discussion—see Top. Your original proposition with the creation of this section was related the article, but since no changes can be made without another RfC, this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. – Rhinopiasnbsp;(talk) 19:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rhinopias for the link to the full PDF of the article. I've read it, and I share your opinion that this does not rise to the level of having a new RfC. The authors' conclusion begins:

Collectively, the studies cited in this review clearly indicate that GM crops are prospering and have the potential to spread across the globe. The studies mention no direct harm to either human or animal health as a consequence of the consumption of GM food or feed. However, there remain concerns regarding the long-term usage of GM food and feed. Evidence presented indicating damage to the environment and biodiversity gives considerable grounds for concern, particularly with regard to the consequences of gene flow.

There really is nothing new here, for our purposes. Issues of the environment and gene flow are unrelated to the consensus language, and are already well-covered on this page. Concerns about the need for more long-term tox studies are already covered on the page, and the authors agree with the scientific consensus about the lack of acute safety issues. That leaves us simply with the catchy language about "The 'consensus' over the GM safety is a falsely perpetuated construct" in the abstract, and the full text shows that the authors hold a more nuanced view than that, so it would be cherry-picking for us to change the page on that basis.

I think that for us to open up a major revision process, there would have to be a statement by the authors that new evidence has come forward to alter the scientific position on acute food safety, and/or a follow-up analysis of the report by a major authority such as the WHO saying that the previous scientific consensus now needs to be reconsidered. We do not have that. And as for the Krimsky opinion piece, it's already cited in the consensus language. And if we "were" to undertake a major revision, we would need to update the literature as a whole, including the Domingo re-analysis that came out just as the RfC was ending, in which Domingo said that although the earlier analysis (cited on the page) said more studies were needed, subsequent studies had provided enough evidence to conclude that acute food effects are safe. --Tryptofish21:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Domingo don't said this "subsequent studies had provided enough evidence ", he said nearly opposite. Cathry22:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Not that it's critical at this point, but you are thinking about http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412011000055?via%3Dihub, whereas I was talking about the subsequent reassessment: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691516301934. --Tryptofish22:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I thinking about latest 2016 study - he states "Long-term studies on the safety and the health effects of GM plants are still necessary." and rejects substantial equivalence concept. Cathry22:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

And what he says about long-term studies is the same thing as the scientific consensus (see also: Wikipedia:Cherrypicking). --Tryptofish23:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

But is not the thing in wikipedia articles, which states " currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk" If consensus states "long-term studies are nesessary" (and they cover only few of available varieties at this moment) it is impossible to state "no greater risk". Cathry23:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying – I promise you that I really do. And I understand the logical aspect of it. But there is a difference between "longer studies are needed in order to have a complete scientific understanding, but based upon everything that we know now, scientists believe that there is no greater risk", which is what the sources tell us, and "longer studies are needed because it looks like acute studies might be showing danger", which is not the case. We can only go with the source material that we have now. I suspect that if longer studies start coming out that show long-term health hazards from eating GMO crops, the community will decide to revise the page, but that hasn't happened yet. And unless we have a specific proposal to change this content now, via a major RfC, discussing it here is NOTFORUM. But I also sincerely appreciate your pointing out this new potential source. --Tryptofish23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Domingo and many other scientists do not say they "believe that there is no greater risk". Actually some scientists say "90-day studies" and "substantial equivalence concept" are sufficient, they don't want long-term studies at all. But other scientists state long-term studies and more thorough chemical analysis are necessary to make any conclusions Cathry00:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"'Comment"' There is nothing really new in this review (i.e. emphasising the Pusztai and Seralini experiments and asking for more long term testing) that requires us to add or change anything here regarding the consensus. It could possibly replace or be added to the Krimsky footnote. We should probably look at updating Domingo first though. Aircorn AIR""'corn""'nbsp; 06:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

: Domingo did not change his view from 2011. But I think it is not adequate to hide him and Crimsky reviews in reference. Cathry13:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)iew

This article makes out GMOs to have many pros and few cons, The cons are important to emphasis as well because without them the article seems to have a borderline pro GMO feel to it. —nbsp;Preceding 18:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be advocating for a false sense of balance, that we must give more attention to whatever cons there are, no matter how trivial, because there are strong positives. It would be an inappropriate way to skew the article to try to make everything appear balanced. (Can you imagine being the editor who tries to come up with enough positive aspects for, say, cancer that it balances out the negatives?) --NatGertler Nat Gertler 23:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

GMO foods

To the moderator of this page, please review the information below. Retain or discard as you see fit. seemed that some clarification was needed. I have a scientific back ground and a lot of non science people do not understand the pros and cons presented below.

It appears that the definition of GMO is rather narrow. Representing only lab style genetic engineering. aside from creating some fear, it also subverts the genetic engineering that's been going on for thousands of years through cross breeding. While "engineering" may produce quicker results, and is more flexible in the crossing of similar and non similar organisms. it should be noted that the cross breeding of food and animals that has gone on for 1000s of years has created genetically modified fruits vegetables farm animals and pets. Also, genetic modification through cross breeding is not always "safe" for the consumer or the organism. one may simply look at a wild strawberry vs a store strawberry to see the effect of cross breeding. Carrots, pumpkins, seedless fruits, cows, horses, dogs, cats, rabbits, and many more have all been "genetically modified" through cross breeding. It would seem the public should understand that genetic modification has been gong on for a long time, that the difference is speed of the cycle, and the ability to "splice in genes from dissimilar species. Certainly "gene engineering" is a faster and more dangerous process, this does not mean that the slower less dangerous "cross breeding" process is not with out dangers and problems. some cross breeding has involved "mixing" of species, Splake, Tiger musky, are 2 examples. these fish have been released in to the environment with little regard for the harm to native species they may cause. The long and short of my comments are: we have been playing games with the genetics of our food sources for 1000s of years, that care should be taken to help people understand both methods represent danger, mistakes, and some good, such as having a lot of food to eat! —nbsp;Preceding 15:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Not a moderator, but I edit around this area. This has come up before and consenus is that we use the narrower definition of genetic engineering here. This is mostly supported by modern reliable sources that term genetc engineering and gentically modified organisms this way. There is merit to including articficial selection, cross breeding, polyploidy, and even mutigenisis and cloning as historical aspects or supplementary information of gentic engineering. In fact there is a section dedicated to this at History of genetic engineeringAgriculture. This article, although not terribly well developed, incudes a paragraph referencing this and links to the main history article. As to saftey aspects between genetic engineering vs other genetic manipulation techniques there is scope to include this here, in Genetically modified food controversies, Regulation of genetic engineering and other articles, but we must be careful of keeping stuff due and not going off into coatracks. It used to be a messy area to edit in, but has died down somewhat now so feel free to sign up an add information yourself if you wish. Aircorn AIR"corn"nbsp; 22:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Article improvements

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 AIR"corn"nbsp; 09:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

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 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 , 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. --Tryptofish20:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_organismtype=revisiondiff=875349983oldid=875346770 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? Boghog21:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, even adding more recent sources would require either: a new RfC of equivalent prominence, or a consensus of admins at 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. --Tryptofish21:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

It may be overturned only by another widely published full 30-day RfC, a consensus of administrators at 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 147Transcluding article content into other articles). The hidden text is a good idea though and I will add it to the other articles. Aircorn AIR"corn"nbsp; 22:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

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. --Tryptofish22:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

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 GMORFC so hopefully that helps prevent these good faith edits and saves everyone a bit of angst. Aircorn AIR"corn"nbsp; 16:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. --Tryptofish20:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

ec

Sorry to do this to you, but I think you introduced the cite error. It was not present when I finished editing last nighthttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_organismoldid=875295719 and came about with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_organismtype=revisiondiff=875343999oldid=875343564 this diff. Going back to the original addition of the paragraph in July 2016 it did not use https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_organismoffset=limit=500action=history. 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_organismtype=revisiondiff=875350282oldid=875349983 (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 AIR"corn"nbsp; 21:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

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. --Tryptofish22:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I really didn't. It was never in the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_organismtype=revisiondiff=728835381oldid=728121174 addition of the paragraph after the RFC and it was already present elsewhere before I started the latest round of edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_organismaction=editoldid=852502698 search ref name="AMA" here. In fact the cause of the issue was another good faith user who combined the cites 2 weeks ago.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_organismdiff=nextoldid=873629011 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 AIR"corn"nbsp; 16:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

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. --Tryptofish20:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

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. Kingofaces4320:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

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 AIR"corn"nbsp; 08:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

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. --Tryptofish21:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

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. Kingofaces4302:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I am going to play with

Genetic engineering sidebar

and update the

Genetic engineering

over the next few days so hopefully I will keep out of your way. Aircorn AIR"corn"nbsp; 08:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't expect that to affect anything I'll be doing. Hopefully I'll have everything wrapped before Tuesday or close to it. Kingofaces4305:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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. Kingofaces4306:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

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 AIR"corn"nbsp; 06:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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 AIR"corn"nbsp; 04:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Protected articles

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

To prevent vandalism and the like. --Tryptofish20:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Congrats on GA

Congrats and appreciation to all the editors who raised this page to a GA! --Tryptofish22:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)