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]

The article on Genetically Modified Food Controversies: <ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies <ref> seems more impartial.

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.

Unless a persuasive argument for keeping this section appears in response, I will attempt removal of this section. Copsewood (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You may want to check this unbelievable case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls) to understand what “needs to be scientifically tested” means.

I agree that this section needs to be removed. Entropy1963 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: just after posting my comment, I received a message from user Tryptofish that on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Genetically_modified_organisms a huge discussion already exists related to this wording I mentioned in my post.

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.

I will remove it myself tomorrow believing that it's better to discuss here whether to include this section than to remove it. Entropy1963 (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Remove all examples. This is Denialism, not List of topics that are often the subject of denialism. Having an article be a list of examples instead of covering the topic in general is a trademark of weak writing on Wikipedia. Failing that, obviously leave it in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:22, 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]

Do you know Aristarchus from Samos? I stopped reading right there because this is not a chatroom but only for improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 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.

My point was and still is, that Denialism is a derogatory term (and should be) and therefore must be used with caution. Entropy1963 (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You made it a chatroom by focusing your replies to other than improving the article matters Untrue.

From your first reply already you accused me of being a denialist. Untrue. I pointed out that you use the same type of invalid reasoning as they do.

must be used with caution We already use it with caution. We do not conjure it up from nothing, we have RS for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific consensus changes. Yup, but that's a truism. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 jars tc 09:38, 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 jars tc 15:47, 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]