Talk:Golden rice

Golden Rice was tested illegally on children in China

Source: https://www.nature.com/news/china-sacks-officials-over-golden-rice-controversy-1.11998

I believe this is controversial and should be added to the appropriate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.132.255 (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned in the Research section David notMD (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Amount?

Lead says 144 g/day and the VAD section says 75 g/day. Is this a conflict, or an adult versus child thing? David notMD (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Proper noun?

This article alternates between Golden Rice (proper noun) and golden rice (common noun). Sources are mixed as well. We should pick one and be consistent. I would lean slightly toward Golden Rice to differentiate from other rice that has a similar color. Also, the article mentions Golden Rice 2 which would look strange lowercase. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Could we make the diseases listed in the intro links?

E.g. xerophthalmia Scientelensia (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Yes check.svg Done. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

2024 case in lead

Hi TadejM. I noticed your recent edit here. I disagree that the 2024 case should be mentioned in the lead as this places undue emphasis on a single court case. There's also the risk of implying a false balance on what exactly the scientific consensus is on the status of golden rice, which is that it is safe. This is why I moved content earlier about the case to its own section in this edit. Your thoughts? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

We should also be careful with language like "accused" per MOS:CLAIM. I'd suggest rephrasing this to Template:Tq Or something of that nature, I'm not particularly picky. I just think the current language isn't ideal. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Clovermoss. Thanks for the comment. I agree with the move of details to a later section but consider it necessary to mention in the lead see since this court decision has wide ramifications for the crop. The court specifically mentions "lack of full scientific certainty". This information can't be objected based on an open letter from 2016 and I would find it undue balance to leave it out. Regarding the word accused, it seems fine to me since the text reads "They have misrepresented [GMOs] risks, benefits, and impacts, and supported the criminal destruction of approved field trials and research projects." Saying that somebody supported a criminal act sounds like an accusation to me. --TadejM ^{my talk} 22:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

My argument is that it's just one country and that it seems like undue emphasis to focus on the Philippines specifically and by extension, a single court case. Keeping it as written is also somewhat misleading as without further context, one might conclude that this case's conclusion about "scientific uncertainty" is that GMOs aren't safe, which is demonstrately against the global scientific consensus on the matter. Hence why I don't think this belongs in the lead at all. The vast majority of other countries approve the use of genetically modified crops like golden rice. I also think it's possible you're misunderstanding what I was implying about MOS:CLAIM here. We shouldn't be using words like "accused" in wikivoice, even if you think it's an accurate way of describing the situation. More neutral language like "stated" or "described" is preferable, as indicated in the site's Manual of Style. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The Philippines were the first country to approve the commercial cultivation of golden rice and the first one to ban it, which seems notable to me, as it implies that the crop does not live up to its promise. According to the court, which is a reliable source, "it said conflicting scientific views gave rise to "severe" health and environmental safety concerns."[1] Regarding the word accused, per MOS:ACCUSED, "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." -TadejM ^{my talk} 23:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ACCUSED is about describing suspects of crimes, not general statements, so I think MOS:CLAIM is more relevant here. As for Template:Tq, that's your opinion. If you go to the specific section about this over at Golden rice#Rejection, you'll see more information about this decision and how it's been criticized for putting the lives of thousands at risk. Anyways, I still think the information you've included is undue and that this juxtaposition is misleading as written. I'll seek a third opinion on the matter and hopefully this will help settle our disagreement. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

To be a bit more clear about what I mean by requesting a third opinion, I have listed our disagreement here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this is the best way to go. --TadejM ^{my talk} 02:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's to hoping. :) I've never used the process before but it seems like a good idea. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Clovermoss and @TadejM, I am here to provide a third opinion! As I understand it, there are two points of disagreement about content in the lead section:

• Whether or not a mention of the Philippines CA decision is due weight, and
• Whether or not the word "accused" is appropriate in describing the open letter to Greenpeace

Template:PbAfter reading the above discussion as well as the relevant portions of the article/its sources, here is what I propose:

• Keeping in mind that the lead section should give an overview of the article content, and not be overly detailed, I agree that it is undue to highlight this decision in the lead. The body of the article raises points of controversy and points of support, and these should be broadly summarized.
• Alternatively, brief examples (e.g. the Philippines decision, which is significant even if it disagrees with scientific consensus) can indicate the scale of viewpoints to readers. However, I also see that major bodies such as the FDA and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have supported the use of golden rice. It would be undue to emphasize, for example, the cease and desist and not mention the FDA's stance, but it might be neutral to include mention of both.
• Finally, I see no major issue with the word "accused" in this context. Per MOS:ACCUSED, "ensure that the source of the accusation is clear" — in this case it seems like a clear, neutral description that these people accused Greenpeace of such and such.

Hopefully I've helped in resolving the issue, please let me know if anything's unclear! And thanks to both of you for a very civil disagreement :) ~Adam ^{(talk · contribs)} 05:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. Thank you for providing a thoughtful commment. It is true that this court decision is significant as you say: banning any crop in a major country definitely is significant and deserves a mention in the lead. I agree that only mentioning the Philippino case but leaving out Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as FDA might put an undue weight on this court case and miss out an important aspect, so I support the proposal to add this further example. Thank you also for confirming the use of the word "accused", which is in line with the guidelines on the matter. --TadejM ^{my talk} 09:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Adam, thanks for stepping in here and providing your perspective. I'm not sure I agree with your thoughts on "accused" but it might be more relevant to raise my issue on the MOS talk page instead. I'm sure this isn't the first time editors have disagreed over if MOS:CLAIM interferes with what is written at MOS:ACCUSED and it might be important to clarify how the two are different.

My concern with mentioning the Phillipines decision is that it is undue as written, not necessarily that it should be ommitted entirely. It's the specific phrasing of "the Philippino Court of Appeals, citing a lack of scientific certainty regarding its health and environmental impact" that concerns me the most. Because golden rice is generally considered to be safe and this leads undue emphasis to that idea that golden rice isn't. WP:UNDUE specifically states that Template:Tq. TadejM, would you be alright if this was changed to:

"Golden rice is generally considered to be safe: with the FDA, Health Canada, International Rice Research Institute and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supporting its use. In 2016, 107 Nobel laureates wrote an open letter to Greenpeace and its supporters, asking it "to abandon their campaign against ‘GMOs’ in general and Golden Rice in particular". In 2024, the Court of Appeals decided against the use of golden rice in the Phillipines."

These changes would address all of my listed concerns (the phrasing about the Nobel Laureates is what is used later on in the article). What do you think? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to include the Philippino decision in the lead. In general, I would propose that the sentence on opposition by environmentalists is kept in the paragraph, so the revised version would be:

"Golden rice is generally considered to be safe: with the FDA, Health Canada, International Rice Research Institute and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supporting its use. It has been met with significant opposition from environmental and anti-globalisation activists who point out its risks regarding biodiversity, unforeseen health effects, and socioeconomic concerns. In 2016, 107 Nobel laureates wrote an open letter to Greenpeace and its supporters, asking it "to abandon their campaign against ‘GMOs’ in general and Golden Rice in particular". In 2024, the Philippino Court of Appeals issued a cease and desist order regarding the growth of golden rice in the country, citing a "lack of scientific certainty regarding its health and environmental impact"." This is in line with what the sources cited earlier provide ([2], [3]), avoids the use of the word "accused", and makes it clear that the Philippino decision was based on review of scientific documentation and not just an arbitrary imposition

Please let me know if this makes sense to you. --TadejM ^{my talk} 10:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is reasonable and I'm glad we're no longer talking past each other. It might be a good idea to consider if perhaps our reliance on quotations could be reduced and that this content be paraphrased instead but I don't want perfect to be the enemy of good here. I'll implement this version of the text. Thank you for hearing me out on this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you. --TadejM ^{my talk} 11:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)