1661:
feel unreasonable. But if you are planning to get the article to FAC at some point, I have the feeling that the "Controversy" section is the weakest part of the article, and should ideally be improved before submitting to FAC. My suggestion above was one, probably ill-conceived, attempt to get the section into the right direction. This controversy is for sure of high relevance (maybe not so much for science, but for society in general), and in my opinion could be fleshed out without violating
Summary style. I'm really not sure what to do precisely. It somehow remains very general and vague, without really getting to the points. A clear structure is also difficult to spot (most of the section is about food, with some bits in-between about other concerns). Maybe try to discuss concerns point by point. One more point that you may want to consider:
1769:
even be attempting this. A single paragraph could work, but it would need that one to be changed slightly. I think allergenicity needs to be mentioned as a concern, along with HGT to humans (although less so). Pusztai and
Seralini could be something else that is linked (I think we did it well somewhere else). Obviously they need to be balanced with how much of a risk there actually is. I am of the opinion that not mentioning something due to unscientific concerns just makes the problem worse. Better to mention it and then explain the science. It does get a bit tricky for overview articles, but we all knew this was going to be a difficult section to get right.
1765:
concerns to the crop section, but the same could be said about the health paragraph (fish aside) and no one is going to touch that. Crops is mentioned as the major concern in the lead and intro of this section, so I don't think there are Due concerns giving it extra weight. I might include a sentence on containment of research GMOs somewhere to broaden the scope a bit if I can find a decent source. I actually misread your use of that parity source and see now it was for the preceding sentence. I still feel we need a stronger source to say that rates of weeds have not increased. I would be surprised if there was not a journal article on this.
1723:
weight. I think it is important for the narrative that we outline what the concerns are before we dispel them. That is followed by the environment, which although it gets less mentioning in the media has more evidence in the reliable literature. My general thinking weight wise is two paragraphs on health (one covered by the arb wording), two on environment (one focusing on gene flow - which is probably the most significant), one paragraph covering the other issues (IP, religous etc) and one paragraph giving us an intro to the opposition (including the groups involved).
1816:
overstated by many so not sure we need to give it more than a passing mention. Of the two studies often cited one is misunderstood and the other would be interpreted as background by most researchers. I added the older source you mentioned, if a newer one comes up we can replace it. I think we cover gene flow to other similar (or wild-type) species adequately now, but feel free to make some adjustments. Overall I am pretty happy with our coverage of crops, although I might look for some non-food controversies.
1686:
if this would be nominated for FA, but until it would be prepped for FA-like depth, I'd really only expect the gene flow topic to have a sentence or two at most on gene flow (currently mentioned in the controversy section) and more in the daughter articles. A bit more history on the controversy section is that it is meant to be vague as it gives brief mention of largely fringe viewpoints without going into depth or undue weight of those viewpoints while leaving more for
1694:
health risk for farmers, with one farmers generally don't have to interact with that also doesn't affect human health. The latter for herbicides currently uses a much less toxic herbicide that still gets sprayed like any other pesticide, but that's replacing older more toxic herbicides. Your comments are reminding me of a few areas here that could be strengthened, so I'll see if I can do some tweaks in this area in the next day or two to tackle some vague wording.
1667:– "beneficial" is quite vague here. Using GM crops is arguably not beneficial for the farmer's health, as GM crops come in a package with pesticides. On the other hand, few would disagree that GM crops would be beneficial to the farmers as they increase yield. So why mention the farmers at all in the introductory paragraph? In my feeling the whole discussion revolves more around environmental impact and consumers health. --
1552:
wise, but may in the future provide some content suitable for here. We don't mention the ethics or regulation of human genetic engineering, because until now (well really Lulu and Nana still need better confirmation) it has always been the realm of sci fi. I also find this whole regulatory issues very dry and don't really want to add too much on regulatory agencies and legislation to this page (
42:
1534:, but may struggle to find info on research. As to the US bias, they are the major pusher of the technology (in crops anyway) so it is mainly focused on them. I tried to keep the regulation as a contrast between Europe and the USA as they are probably the most conflicting in terms of regulations. If that isn't apparent then I will look at rewording it.
467:. Release to market got stalled in labeling law. Instead, first actual sales were in Canada, August 2017. I added refs to confirm both. Raised in Panama does not mean sold in Panama. And anyway, AquaBounty changed its mind and intends to produce fish for US in Indiana. For the moment, not allowed to move eggs from the egg facility in Canada, to US.
1685:
No worries, I'm just feeling out what you were looking for along with some of the logistics of handling some of these topics in various depths. I'm mostly just trying to help wade through of the reasoning and history for the layout of this article and how it fits with the other articles. I'm not sure
267:
scientific literature after it caught on in popular culture despite the initial preference and precision issues. I've changed the text a bit and moved it behind the sentence talking about precision in terminology to make this a bit more clear. Let me know if something still isn't clear on that front.
1749:
when mentioned, but it's also not something I'd fuss over any more for the GA at least. I agree with you that I'd rather see the controversy stuff integrated into the article and remove the section (and maybe get rid of some headaches trying to work with that material), but that's probably something
1744:
For a bit more clarification, the introductory sentence removal was meant to cut down on redundancy since the health stuff was more or less covered by the arb language, but it was just my stab at trimming if it worked. I also added the Kniss source in terms of parity because the
Gilbert source isn't
1641:
This sort of stuff has basically been set aside in the last paragraph of this article (and other articles) including some environmental things to "describe the controversy". I guess I'm not sure how much more could really be included at this broad overview article yet without first fleshing out more
995:
I think I have either fixed all the raised issues or responded here. Sorry it took a bit longer than I expected. I really appreciate the review and look forward to the second half. I should warn you that my hands will be a bit tied when it comes to the controversy section (ARB enforced wording needs
1768:
As to the health info, my main problem is the constraints placed upon us by the GMORFC. It makes writing a flowing article a bit difficult (i.e. the regulatory sentence would fit in better above and there is no real lead in). In the end it is doable, and if we hadn't got closure on that I would not
1857:
The controversy sections are the biggest headache in all these articles. They take up most of the talk page discussions and have burnt out (sometimes unwillingly) many editors. I agree it is the weakest section here, and it is likely to remain so no matter what we do as there are so many different
1800:
that basically say HGT is not a significant risk to human or environmental health either. I’d still have to think about how to tackle this one too (maybe next week when I’m not on mobile). I don’t see this as something that would necessarily hinder the GA process and could be dealt with at a later
1764:
Sorry it took a while to get down to here. While many of the agricultural issues are common to all farming (monocultures, pesticide use, etc), they are brought up a lot with regards to this technology. Maybe that paragraph needs to state that somewhere. I would love to move many of these specific
1660:
Please consider all my points as mere suggestions for further improvement. Not everything is required for reaching GA, including this point. My personal goal is not to pass it as GA as fast as possible, but to help improving the article as much as possible. Please feel free to skip everything you
1551:
I am in two minds about this. I understand the world view concern, but the fact is most sources focuses on the US vs EU conflict. Also as far as I can tell most other countries seem to base their regulations from those ones. The He controversy is still too new to really get a gauge on regulation
1240:
Yeah, I personally don't usually find it a big deal which one is used even if it's inconsistent (I didn't notice at all in my previous reviews), but I also saw a fair mix of both uses now that I look. You never know if someone might raise a fuss in the future on RETAIN though, so it'll save some
1815:
I suppose it depends how deep down the rabbit hole we go. There is the
Brazilian nut and the pea which were self regulated to a degree. Plus you have the option of potentially removing allergens through GE. I added a source saying they are tested for toxicity and allerginicity. HGT to humans is
1740:
No worries. The secondary pest thing isn't really unique to GMOs per se (open a niche with resistant plants or other control methods, GM or not, and something can still fill it) and probably fits better under the crop section, but I'm ok with your current version as is in terms of the GA nom at
1722:
I undid one of your edits as I think it is important to mention the secondary pest concern. I will expand on it when I get time. I am not sure about removing the health introductory sentence either. From my understanding health is the major concern anti-GM groups focus on so deserves a bit more
1693:
For the sentence you mentioned, beneficial includes different aspects like financial, health, etc. in the cited sources. The health one is a big factor because the GM crops either have plant-produced insecticides or herbicide tolerance. The former replaces foliar insecticides, which are often a
596:
This was just part of an introductory sentence into bacteria used in agriculture. It is application of the whole bacteria in a spray usually used by organic farmers. It is quite popular, or at least was. I think there are issues with the sun degrading it and rain washing it off, so not sure how
266:
This one was my doing, so I'll address it. Basically, GMO has not been a preferred term by scientists compared to genetically engineered organism as outlined in the rest of the paragraph, and GMO really wasn't used at the time. The sources are basically describing that GMO became more common in
1793:
1462:
As to whether some countries are more advanced than others, I have not really found anything useful to add here. Common sense would say that countries with less scientific funding in general would be behind, but that is not A GM thing in particular. The regulations for research appear pretty
1611:
You state that there is no scientific evidence for negative impact on human health. But to be fair, there is evidence for other (e.g., environmental) concerns, such as gene flow. I think this evidence, especially regarding gene flow to other species, should be mentioned, with examples.
1791:
fashion by mentioning that allergens are screened for as part of the regulatory process (i.e., adding a peanut allergen protein isn't going to get approved). For HGT, I’m still looking for good sources we can use here (I usually deal with the primary literature on this subject), but
723:
The original source was quite broad so found an example for tuberculosis (which is possibly the most important one). Don't really want to go into too much detail here as I am trying to keep it overviewish. It went to phase II trials, but although safe wasn't as effective as hoped.
1525:
Article is strongly focused on the US, but almost nothing on China, despite it being a major player in research. I wonder what the regulations are in China? Apparently labeling is mandatory, but research seems not to be as strongly regulated considering the resent human babies?
1442:
Okay found a few decent papers (-crops and -food in the search engine helped). Added quite a bit to the regulation article and a trimmed down version here. Hopefully this covers enough. Luckily the laboratory regulations are pretty consistent across all countries.
597:
effective it is. The genes taken from this bacterium form a large part of the GM crop section. I kept most of the info tied to that section. If it is less confusing I can move it down there, or just delete it as I am not talking about them as specific GMOs here.
1873:
Personally I am not interested in getting these articles to FA level. I feel the amount of fine-tuning needed is not the most efficient use of my time. I could probably get half a dozen of these articles to GA standard in the time it takes to get one to
1529:
The babies were not approved (for want of a better word) so were done outside of the regulatory system. It does pose questions on their checks and balances though. It may take a while, but I will see what I can dig up. I can add some info on crops from
1631:
explains some of that. For your example, the risks of gene flow are basically no different between GMO or traditional breeding in the crop world at least (e.g., it doesn't matter whether herbicide tolerance came from traditional breeding or genetic
1745:
peer-reviewed (i.e., written only by a science journalist as opposed to a statement by an actual weed scientist that is usually considered reliable when attributed). There's more to flesh out on the gene flow topic to make sure everything is
1425:. I don't know if this information is just not easily available, is kept in house or is just flooded out by regulations involving the release of GMOs. It has been a little while since I searched for this so will give it another go now.
1869:
Yeah I wasn't sure where to put the farmer info as it is often disputed as to whether there is any actual benefit to them from growing GM crops. It does look out of place; I will move it to the crop section where it should fit in
1801:
time, so there doesn’t need to be a rush on this, but there’s also the now is as good as time as any aspect too. I'm getting more drive to really dig into developing this topic again, so I'd be willing to help out in either case.
1862:
for that. If it was completely up to me I would get rid of the controversy section altogether and incorporate it into other sections, but there are probably fair points to keep it in given the feelings and coverage of this
1925:
Went through the cites (there are a lot) and edited some and replaced others. Some could be better, but I feel it meets the Good
Standard. If you have any in particulr you are concerned about I can focus on those.
1619:, so I wonder if that would be a better question when that article is under GA review considering how the network of articles/daughter articles is set up? This one gets tricky because a lot of those "concerns" are
1786:
Part of my removals were just for streamlining with prejudice against fleshing those topics out if they fit better, so that all sounds pretty good. Allergenicity definitely can be pretty easily addressed in a
1866:
I feel we cover gene flow well enough, I could potentially explain the
Mexican maize example as it is probably the most well known. I should probably do the Monarch Butterflies for the same reason too.
47:
1858:
opinions on the topic of GMO safety and what is due weight. I think it is best to keep this as general as possible and not get too tied down in the arguments and counter arguments. We have
1219:
is closely related to that. As such my default spelling comes out. So many lame wars have been fought over what in the end is a relatively minor issue that if someone wants to enforce
126:
1489:
there are currently nine countries that ban the growing and importing GM food. I don't like using that as a source, but have no reason to doubt them. I will look for a better one.
2065:
I don't have anything to add at this point. Your changes all look good from what I see. The controversy addition looks good too (notable opinions put in the right place etc.).
1560:
here, but I feel I repeat that section too much already. I am going to leave this for now. Let me know if it is an issue that needs resolving and I will come back to it later.
1395:
Both seem to read alright to me. I like the first one slightly better as it only has the one of and is slightly shorter. Not too fussed if somoene wants to change it though.
122:
80:
744:
Outside of biology scientists have used a genetically modified virus to construct a more environmentally friendly lithium-ion battery and other nanostructured materials.
107:
52:
1414:
The regulations section has very little on regulation of research. Do these regulation mean that certain nations are much more advanced in GMO research than others?
70:
99:
1708:
I tried to streamline the controversy section a bit. It's going to be a sort of catchall either way, so if anyone else has ideas, it might be worth trying them.
500:
Most food-producing bacteria are lactic acid bacteria, and this is where the majority of research into genetically engineering food-producing bacteria has gone.
421:
I go into more detail on this under bacteria so hope to just kept it general here. Went with just a strain of
Pseudomonas syringae. Let me know if that works.
1690:. What you're seeing was an intent to balance describing the controversy with other policy, so while tweaking could be done, some vagueness was intended too.
996:
to be used there). Don't let that stop you making any suggestions as myself and a few other editors are familiar with what can and can't be done there.
1859:
1687:
342:
I can't think of or find any ther methods so got rid of the e.g and just mentioned those two methods. Used usually just in case and added a cite.
2079:
I think you did an amazing job, the whole thing is much better now, including the "controversy" section. Happy to pass the well-deserved GA. --
184:– I would be careful here. "Vital" seems not the the correct word, as there are other means of curing diseases, GMOs are not "vital" for this.
156:
187:
Changed to important and re wrote the sentence to emphasise that this refers to GMOs as the creation of model organisms for human diseases.
1118:
Nope, unless you count salmon. Added a sentence to the first paragraph of the animal section to indicate what has been approved and where.
259:– Bit vague, when was it not used? Besides, any term would not be used before coming into use, so the sentence does not make a clear point.
209:– what about other lifeforms, such as bacteria and fungy? Maybe say "life forms" instead? Same issue repeats on several other locations.
1422:
115:
17:
1922:
I would strongly recommend to replace all blog (and similar) sources with the respective scientific paper, or to at least cite both.
75:
1553:
1531:
1418:
1506:
Could not find anything suitable so used the
Literacy one. If this is a problem I could use individual sources for each country.
1201:
I could find said
American too. I can go through and standardize to American unless anyone has strong objections to this change?
1646:
here. Considering the potential legwork needed, maybe that's more relevant of the comprehensive scope for an FA instead of GA?
821:– Tobaco is not an originally engineered plant. Maybe reword "It was the first plant to be altered using genetic engineering"?
591:
Application of
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and other bacteria can help protect crops from insect infestation and plant diseases
257:
The term GMO originally was not used until it became common through popular media to the point even scientists began to use it.
1417:
I have had a tremendous amount of difficulty finding sources on the regulation in lab as opposed to the release. When I wrote
1981:
Would it make sense to include international regulations in the "regulations" section also (i.e, the Cartagena Protocol)? --
2015:
Thanks. This was exactly what I was looking for in a review. I will work through these with KofA over the next few days.
1582:– the issues listed in the previous sentence are not (at least not all of them) ethical. I suggest to remove the "other".
92:
1115:
GMO lifestock: You are listing several, but without stating if these have already been approved somewhere. I guess not?
1482:
To get a more worldwide view, maybe mention the (apparently only three) countries where GMO foods are banned entirely?
1091:
Human alpha-1-antitrypsin is another protein that has been produced and is used in treating humans with this deficiency
619:– you write "the ice plus bacteria", but this term was not formerly mentioned, and deserves explanation and/or a link.
593:– How does this work? How do you apply a bacterium? Do you mean specific genes or proteins taken from this bacterium?
1463:
consistent across most major scientific players so I imagine the reulations themselves don't play much role in this.
1628:
1616:
1796:
of a primary source at least I have watch listed that's at least better quality in a parity sense. There are some
2084:
1986:
1953:
1903:
1672:
1018:
962:
910:
The more obvious advantage to moving pathways is to express greater amounts so removed the better products part.
907:– better is too vague and not neutral. There are many people who would not consider any GMO product as "better".
552:
171:
150:
1294:
Not sure about abundant. I was trying to say that transposon editing techniques were well developed. Reworded.
1948:– does not fit together (genes are genes, proteins are proteins). What are cry proteins, can this be linked? --
1627:
depending on what's being asked. There have been talk page discussions about things like that in the past and
1486:
769:
and as of 2016 two genetically modified yeasts involved in the fermentation of wine have been commercialised
957:, very interesting, and important article. Looks very good. I copy edited as I went. More comments soon. --
2070:
1806:
1755:
1713:
1699:
1651:
1378:
1246:
1206:
297:
272:
1241:
hassle by going to American now since it'll be copy-edited now anyways. I'll take care of that in a bit.
2044:
I think I hve gone through most of the comments now. Sorry it took a while. Let me know what you think.
1197:
I could find was generalize (as opposed to generalise) making the default American English and the most
1140:
935:
Found a better wikilink, Can add an example or explanation if you want, but would rather use wikilinks.
718:
Another approach is to use vectors to create novel vaccines for diseases that have no vaccines available
339:"certain stresses (e.g. thermal or electric shock)." – maybe "(e.g. thermal stress or electric shock)"?
1665:
Although doubts have been raised, most studies have found growing GM crops to be beneficial to farmers.
1066:
The development of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system has effectively halved the amount of time needed
1135:
Text and refs added to indicate being sold in Canada as of 2017, not yet (as of Feb 2019) sold in US.
2080:
2035:
1982:
1949:
1899:
1668:
1014:
990:
958:
548:
167:
146:
1643:
1178:
The article is supposed to be in British English, right? Whatch out for American spellings, such as
749:
Not my area, but I tried to explain it as best I could (had to try and understand it myself first).
1797:
1557:
1216:
1624:
1220:
1190:
441:
The first genetically modified animal to be approved for food use was AquAdvantage salmon in 2015.
1877:
Anyway, thanks for your patience, this section could take a while to get acceptable to everyone.
2088:
2074:
2056:
2027:
2007:
1990:
1974:
1957:
1938:
1907:
1889:
1828:
1810:
1781:
1759:
1735:
1717:
1703:
1676:
1655:
1620:
1597:
1572:
1546:
1518:
1501:
1475:
1455:
1437:
1407:
1382:
1356:
1331:
1306:
1281:
1250:
1235:
1210:
1171:
1144:
1130:
1108:
1083:
1058:
1022:
1008:
983:
966:
947:
922:
897:
872:
836:
811:
786:
761:
736:
710:
685:
660:
634:
609:
583:
556:
542:
517:
492:
458:
433:
408:
383:
354:
332:
301:
276:
249:
224:
199:
175:
160:
1370:
2066:
2053:
2039:
2024:
2004:
1971:
1935:
1886:
1825:
1802:
1778:
1751:
1732:
1709:
1695:
1647:
1594:
1569:
1543:
1515:
1498:
1472:
1452:
1434:
1404:
1374:
1353:
1328:
1303:
1278:
1242:
1232:
1202:
1168:
1127:
1105:
1080:
1055:
1005:
980:
944:
919:
894:
869:
833:
808:
783:
758:
733:
707:
682:
657:
631:
606:
580:
539:
514:
489:
455:
430:
405:
380:
351:
329:
293:
268:
246:
221:
196:
1136:
1788:
1746:
1962:
Cry proteins are delta endotoxins (they link to the same page). Reworded to make clearer.
1068:– How does that relate to the previous info? Does it allow to change stem cells directly?
547:
I meant you could avoid repeating "product" if you would delete the word "production". --
182:
vital to the discovery and development of cures and treatments for many serious diseases.
312:
317:– suboptimal wording, I suggest to simply write "This gene can be taken from a cell".
971:
Thanks for doing this. I will work through these today and comment below each point.
2045:
2016:
1996:
1963:
1927:
1878:
1817:
1770:
1724:
1586:
1561:
1535:
1507:
1490:
1464:
1444:
1426:
1396:
1345:
1320:
1295:
1270:
1224:
1160:
1119:
1097:
1072:
1047:
997:
972:
954:
936:
911:
886:
861:
825:
800:
775:
750:
725:
699:
674:
649:
623:
598:
572:
531:
506:
481:
447:
422:
397:
393:– Maybe an explanation (what is tissue plasminogen activatior) would be good here.
372:
343:
321:
238:
213:
188:
1390:
say that absent scientific evidence of harm even voluntary labeling is misleading
1215:
I probably wrote 80% of the current article (if not more) and while not British,
1485:
Curious where you got the three number from, it may be outdated. Looking at the
446:
USA. Added a second sentence mentioning that they are raised in Panama as well
505:
I have some examples at the end of the paragraph. Do you think it needs more?
1291:– what does "well developed" mean here? Maybe write "abundant" instead?
622:
Its just a way to differentiate from the ice-minus strain. Will reword.
285:
I would suggest to name the section "definition" instead of "etymology".
849:
Clarified. Arabidopsis is up there too, but this is made implied later.
363:
371:
went with induced other bacteria as it would have been more than one
1189:
I didn't notice British variants being used before, but in terms of
1741:
least. No strong feelings on any of my edits in the section really.
568:– again, I think we need to know which countries this applies to.
844:
As such the transgenic tools and procedures are well established
1366:– you consistently spell it like this, but isn't it "nematode"?
391:
engineered to produce human tissue plasminogen activator in 1987
796:– unprecise. Does it refer to flowers, or to colors of crops?
746:– Maybe a short explanation here to get an idea how it works?
720:– How does this work? Maybe try to provide some general idea?
477:– Model organisms are species, but Bacteria is a large clade.
1043:– "as in plants"? "as for plants"? I'm not a native speaker.
1642:
in the daughter/granddaughter articles before assessing the
366:
and then induced another bacteria to incorporate the plasmid
1946:
in the form of delta endotoxin genes known as cry proteins.
1556:
is better suited to that). I could add the table I made at
668:
set back the development of this approach for many years.
368:– "induced other bacteria" or "induced another bacterium
1392:– should it be "in the absence of scientific evidence"?
1198:
1194:
134:
103:
1223:
to an American version I am not going to to fight it.
571:
Best source I found was dated 2015 so used "as of".
1269:DavidMD has added some more info on the countries.
1071:Yep. It is pretty much a game breaker. Elucidated.
932:– maybe add an accessible explanation in brackets.
930:
plants can modify the proteins post-translationally
819:
It was the first plant to be genetically engineered
232:
with genes by introduced, eliminated, or rearranged
673:Added date of Jesse Gelsinger trial to sentence.
566:Food products from genetically modified bacteria
1314:in its egg passed regulatory approval in 2015.
905:to produce greater volume and better products.
846:– but only for tabacco? Maybe make this clear
166:Reviewing now, but I might take a few days. --
8:
1369:Changed to nematode. Nemotode looks to be a
1289:Transposons are well developed in Drosophila
1093:– but is this also from the mentioned goat?
693:Herpes simplex viruses is a promising vector
860:Online databases and such. Have said this.
617:they can compete with the ice-plus bacteria
463:FDA approved in the US, but as of Feb 2019
1159:No. Like most of the others it is the US.
30:
1041:the end aims are much the same as plants
475:Bacteria are the simplest model organism
396:Added a wikilink and short explanation.
1860:Genetically modified food controversies
1688:Genetically modified food controversies
1615:Most of that subject matter deals with
1532:Genetically modified food in Asia#China
1264:It obtained regulatory approval in 2015
527:– is "reduce toxic byproducts" enough?
61:
33:
502:– Maybe add which foods they produce?
212:Yeah that should cover all organisms.
1373:though I didn't know about until now.
1154:to become publicly available as a pet
7:
1898:That's it. Good overview overall. --
855:has abundant bioinformatic resources
1995:Added to the start, plus Asilomar.
1341:– developmental biology research?
24:
18:Talk:Genetically modified organism
1554:Regulation of genetic engineering
1423:from the University of Woolongong
1419:Regulation of genetic engineering
525:reduce toxic byproduct production
1339:are used in development biology
794:to create new colours in plants
207:says that the plants or animals
1013:Great! Last comments below! --
465:still not being SOLD in the US
1:
2089:18:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
2075:20:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
2057:09:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
2008:09:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
1975:09:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
1939:09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
1829:20:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
1811:17:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
1782:08:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
1598:07:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
1573:07:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
1547:08:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
1519:22:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
1502:08:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
1476:08:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
1456:08:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
443:– Approved in which country?
2028:08:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
1991:14:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
1958:14:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
1918:My apologies, I forgot two:
1908:12:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
1890:09:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
1760:21:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
1736:09:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
1718:05:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
1704:03:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
1677:09:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
1656:22:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
1438:22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
1421:the best source I found was
1408:22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
1383:22:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
1357:22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
1332:22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
1307:22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
1282:22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
1251:22:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
1236:09:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
1211:05:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
1172:22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
1156:– but not worldwide, right?
1145:01:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
1131:10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
1109:10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
1084:10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
1059:10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
1046:As for sounds better to me.
1023:12:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
1009:09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
984:18:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
967:20:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
948:09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
923:09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
898:09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
880:(actually lavender or mauve)
873:09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
837:09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
812:09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
787:09:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
762:01:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
737:00:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
711:08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
695:– mixes plural and singular
686:08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
661:08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
645:– Maybe in plural, Viruses?
635:08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
610:08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
584:08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
557:12:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
543:23:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
518:23:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
493:23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
459:23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
434:23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
409:23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
384:23:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
355:22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
333:22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
302:05:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
277:05:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
250:22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
225:22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
200:22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
176:21:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
161:21:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
882:– please link these colors
857:– I don't understand this.
771:– again, in which country?
418:– can you link or explain?
2109:
1750:for another day after GA.
1617:Genetically modified crops
234:– something missing here?
530:Don't quite follow this.
311:This can be taken from a
1487:Genetic Literacy Project
1319:Another one for the US.
1794:here’s a recent example
1199:recent comment in 2014
1580:Other ethical issues
1606:Controversy section
1558:Genetic engineering
648:Yeah, makes sense.
362:inserted it into a
315:containing the gene
1914:Forgotten comments
237:Removed the "by".
1217:my native variant
1035:Convenience break
89:
88:
2100:
2043:
1371:British spelling
1096:Yep. Clarified.
994:
774:USA and Canada.
416:ice-minus strain
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
2108:
2107:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2081:Jens Lallensack
2036:Jens Lallensack
2033:
1983:Jens Lallensack
1950:Jens Lallensack
1916:
1900:Jens Lallensack
1669:Jens Lallensack
1608:
1037:
1015:Jens Lallensack
991:Jens Lallensack
988:
959:Jens Lallensack
670:When was that?
549:Jens Lallensack
168:Jens Lallensack
147:Jens Lallensack
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2106:
2104:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2060:
2059:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1915:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1864:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1766:
1742:
1691:
1680:
1679:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1607:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1549:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1504:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1184:
1183:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1036:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
952:
951:
950:
927:
926:
925:
902:
901:
900:
877:
876:
875:
852:
851:
850:
841:
840:
839:
816:
815:
814:
791:
790:
789:
766:
765:
764:
741:
740:
739:
715:
714:
713:
690:
689:
688:
665:
664:
663:
639:
638:
637:
614:
613:
612:
588:
587:
586:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
522:
521:
520:
497:
496:
495:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
438:
437:
436:
413:
412:
411:
388:
387:
386:
359:
358:
357:
337:
336:
335:
307:
306:
305:
304:
287:
286:
282:
281:
280:
279:
261:
260:
254:
253:
252:
229:
228:
227:
204:
203:
202:
165:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2105:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2058:
2055:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2041:
2037:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2026:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2009:
2006:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1973:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1944:
1940:
1937:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1924:
1923:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1896:
1891:
1888:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1865:
1861:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1830:
1827:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1799:
1798:older reviews
1795:
1790:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1780:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1767:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1748:
1743:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1734:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1692:
1689:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1663:
1662:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1632:engineering).
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1613:
1610:
1609:
1605:
1599:
1596:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1584:
1583:
1581:
1578:
1574:
1571:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1559:
1555:
1550:
1548:
1545:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1533:
1528:
1527:
1524:
1520:
1517:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1505:
1503:
1500:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1488:
1484:
1483:
1481:
1477:
1474:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1461:
1457:
1454:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1436:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1415:
1413:
1409:
1406:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1394:
1393:
1391:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1367:
1365:
1362:
1358:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1343:
1342:
1340:
1337:
1333:
1330:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1318:
1317:
1315:
1312:
1308:
1305:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1293:
1292:
1290:
1287:
1283:
1280:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1268:
1267:
1266:– but where?
1265:
1262:
1261:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1170:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1158:
1157:
1155:
1152:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1129:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1117:
1116:
1114:
1110:
1107:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1095:
1094:
1092:
1089:
1085:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1070:
1069:
1067:
1064:
1060:
1057:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1045:
1044:
1042:
1039:
1038:
1034:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1004:
1003:
1002:
992:
987:
986:
985:
982:
979:
978:
977:
970:
969:
968:
964:
960:
956:
953:
949:
946:
943:
942:
941:
934:
933:
931:
928:
924:
921:
918:
917:
916:
909:
908:
906:
903:
899:
896:
893:
892:
891:
884:
883:
881:
878:
874:
871:
868:
867:
866:
859:
858:
856:
853:
848:
847:
845:
842:
838:
835:
832:
831:
830:
823:
822:
820:
817:
813:
810:
807:
806:
805:
798:
797:
795:
792:
788:
785:
782:
781:
780:
773:
772:
770:
767:
763:
760:
757:
756:
755:
748:
747:
745:
742:
738:
735:
732:
731:
730:
722:
721:
719:
716:
712:
709:
706:
705:
704:
698:Went plural.
697:
696:
694:
691:
687:
684:
681:
680:
679:
672:
671:
669:
666:
662:
659:
656:
655:
654:
647:
646:
644:
640:
636:
633:
630:
629:
628:
621:
620:
618:
615:
611:
608:
605:
604:
603:
595:
594:
592:
589:
585:
582:
579:
578:
577:
570:
569:
567:
564:
558:
554:
550:
546:
545:
544:
541:
538:
537:
536:
529:
528:
526:
523:
519:
516:
513:
512:
511:
504:
503:
501:
498:
494:
491:
488:
487:
486:
479:
478:
476:
473:
466:
462:
461:
460:
457:
454:
453:
452:
445:
444:
442:
439:
435:
432:
429:
428:
427:
420:
419:
417:
414:
410:
407:
404:
403:
402:
395:
394:
392:
389:
385:
382:
379:
378:
377:
370:
369:
367:
365:
360:
356:
353:
350:
349:
348:
341:
340:
338:
334:
331:
328:
327:
326:
319:
318:
316:
314:
309:
308:
303:
299:
295:
291:
290:
289:
288:
284:
283:
278:
274:
270:
265:
264:
263:
262:
258:
255:
251:
248:
245:
244:
243:
236:
235:
233:
230:
226:
223:
220:
219:
218:
211:
210:
208:
205:
201:
198:
195:
194:
193:
186:
185:
183:
180:
179:
178:
177:
173:
169:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
2067:Kingofaces43
2048:
2047:
2040:Kingofaces43
2019:
2018:
2014:
1999:
1998:
1966:
1965:
1945:
1930:
1929:
1917:
1881:
1880:
1820:
1819:
1803:Kingofaces43
1773:
1772:
1752:Kingofaces43
1727:
1726:
1710:Kingofaces43
1696:Kingofaces43
1664:
1648:Kingofaces43
1589:
1588:
1579:
1564:
1563:
1538:
1537:
1510:
1509:
1493:
1492:
1467:
1466:
1447:
1446:
1429:
1428:
1399:
1398:
1389:
1375:Kingofaces43
1363:
1348:
1347:
1338:
1323:
1322:
1313:
1298:
1297:
1288:
1273:
1272:
1263:
1243:Kingofaces43
1227:
1226:
1203:Kingofaces43
1179:
1163:
1162:
1153:
1122:
1121:
1100:
1099:
1090:
1075:
1074:
1065:
1050:
1049:
1040:
1000:
999:
975:
974:
955:user:Aircorn
939:
938:
929:
914:
913:
904:
889:
888:
879:
864:
863:
854:
843:
828:
827:
818:
803:
802:
793:
778:
777:
768:
753:
752:
743:
728:
727:
717:
702:
701:
692:
677:
676:
667:
652:
651:
642:
626:
625:
616:
601:
600:
590:
575:
574:
565:
534:
533:
524:
509:
508:
499:
484:
483:
474:
464:
450:
449:
440:
425:
424:
415:
400:
399:
390:
375:
374:
361:
346:
345:
324:
323:
310:
294:Kingofaces43
269:Kingofaces43
256:
241:
240:
231:
216:
215:
206:
191:
190:
181:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
1195:first usage
1137:David notMD
104:visual edit
1644:WP:SUMMARY
480:Reworded.
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
1625:WP:FRINGE
1316:– Where?
1221:WP:Retain
1191:WP:ENGVAR
799:Flowers.
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
1623:or even
1621:WP:UNDUE
1364:nemotode
641:Heading
157:contribs
76:Criteria
1870:better.
364:plasmid
127:history
108:history
94:Article
2054:(talk)
2025:(talk)
2005:(talk)
1972:(talk)
1936:(talk)
1887:(talk)
1863:issue.
1826:(talk)
1789:WP:DUE
1779:(talk)
1747:WP:DUE
1733:(talk)
1595:(talk)
1585:Done.
1570:(talk)
1544:(talk)
1516:(talk)
1499:(talk)
1473:(talk)
1453:(talk)
1435:(talk)
1405:(talk)
1354:(talk)
1344:Done.
1329:(talk)
1304:(talk)
1279:(talk)
1233:(talk)
1193:, the
1169:(talk)
1128:(talk)
1106:(talk)
1081:(talk)
1056:(talk)
1006:(talk)
981:(talk)
945:(talk)
920:(talk)
895:(talk)
885:Done.
870:(talk)
834:(talk)
809:(talk)
784:(talk)
759:(talk)
734:(talk)
708:(talk)
683:(talk)
658:(talk)
632:(talk)
607:(talk)
581:(talk)
540:(talk)
515:(talk)
490:(talk)
456:(talk)
431:(talk)
406:(talk)
381:(talk)
352:(talk)
330:(talk)
320:Done.
292:Done.
247:(talk)
222:(talk)
197:(talk)
1180:color
824:Okay
643:Virus
136:Watch
16:<
2085:talk
2071:talk
2049:corn
2038:and
2020:corn
2000:corn
1987:talk
1967:corn
1954:talk
1931:corn
1904:talk
1882:corn
1821:corn
1807:talk
1774:corn
1756:talk
1728:corn
1714:talk
1700:talk
1673:talk
1652:talk
1629:this
1590:corn
1565:corn
1539:corn
1511:corn
1494:corn
1468:corn
1448:corn
1430:corn
1400:corn
1379:talk
1349:corn
1324:corn
1299:corn
1274:corn
1247:talk
1228:corn
1207:talk
1164:corn
1141:talk
1123:corn
1101:corn
1076:corn
1051:corn
1019:talk
1001:corn
976:corn
963:talk
940:corn
915:corn
890:corn
865:corn
829:corn
804:corn
779:corn
754:corn
729:corn
703:corn
678:corn
653:corn
627:corn
602:corn
576:corn
553:talk
535:corn
510:corn
485:corn
451:corn
426:corn
401:corn
376:corn
347:corn
325:corn
313:cell
298:talk
273:talk
242:corn
217:corn
192:corn
172:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
2046:AIR
2017:AIR
1997:AIR
1964:AIR
1928:AIR
1879:AIR
1874:FA.
1818:AIR
1771:AIR
1725:AIR
1587:AIR
1562:AIR
1536:AIR
1508:AIR
1491:AIR
1465:AIR
1445:AIR
1427:AIR
1397:AIR
1346:AIR
1321:AIR
1296:AIR
1271:AIR
1225:AIR
1161:AIR
1120:AIR
1098:AIR
1073:AIR
1048:AIR
998:AIR
973:AIR
937:AIR
912:AIR
887:AIR
862:AIR
826:AIR
801:AIR
776:AIR
751:AIR
726:AIR
700:AIR
675:AIR
650:AIR
624:AIR
599:AIR
573:AIR
532:AIR
507:AIR
482:AIR
448:AIR
423:AIR
398:AIR
373:AIR
344:AIR
322:AIR
239:AIR
214:AIR
189:AIR
2087:)
2073:)
1989:)
1956:)
1906:)
1809:)
1758:)
1716:)
1702:)
1675:)
1654:)
1381:)
1249:)
1209:)
1143:)
1021:)
965:)
555:)
300:)
275:)
174:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
2083:(
2069:(
2042::
2034:@
1985:(
1952:(
1902:(
1805:(
1754:(
1712:(
1698:(
1671:(
1650:(
1377:(
1245:(
1205:(
1182:.
1139:(
1017:(
993::
989:@
961:(
551:(
296:(
271:(
170:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.