diff --git a/_index.db b/_index.db
index d7fb69e4e..3af4726ff 100644
Binary files a/_index.db and b/_index.db differ
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Diary_in_the_Strict_Sense_of_the_Term-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Diary_in_the_Strict_Sense_of_the_Term-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..3bdd7fcae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Diary_in_the_Strict_Sense_of_the_Term-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+---
+title: "A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Diary_in_the_Strict_Sense_of_the_Term"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:40.872017+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term is a collection of the private diaries of the prominent anthropologist Bronisław Malinowski during his fieldwork in New Guinea and the Trobriand Islands between 1914–1915 and 1917–1918. The collection is composed of two diaries, written in Polish.
+Published posthumously by his widow Valetta Swann in 1967, the diaries, which repeatedly touch upon intensely personal matters such as sexual desires, as well as his private prejudices against his interlocutors, have remained extremely controversial. The introduction of the book was written by his pupil Raymond Firth.
+
+
+== History and significance ==
+When the diaries were published in 1967, Clifford Geertz called them "gross" and "tiresome", and wrote that they portrayed Malinowski as "a crabbed, self-preoccupied, hypochondriacal narcissist, whose fellow-feeling for the people he lived with was limited in the extreme." Two decades later, however, he praised the collection as a "backstage masterpiece of anthropology, our The Double Helix".
+Michael W. Young noted that the diaries, "scandalously frank" with regards to topic such as the author's sexual desires and encounters, "debunked the romantic myth that he enjoyed relaxed and friendly rapport with his subjects and it fueled a moral crisis of the discipline in the 1970s." Some parts of the diaries have been described as "racist" and "abusive" towards the natives, although they have been also defended as reflecting his "a bit grouchy" attitude.
+In 1985, Malinowski's daughter, Helena Wayne, noted that the diaries were "very personal [and] not meant for other eyes", and that she would have preferred if they remained out of print, instead available only as raw materials for a biographer. She acknowledged, however, that many scholars found the diaries very useful for insights on Malinowski and his work.
+Writing in 1987, James Clifford called the diaries "a crucial document for the history of anthropology".
+In 2018, William W. Kelly wrote that "debate continues on whether the Diary directly reflects (and discredits) his fieldwork or whether it was an anguished outpouring of psychological anxieties that had more to do with his family, potential fiancées, and career than with anything going on outside his tent on the Trobriands".
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. Stanford University Press. 1989. ISBN 9780804717076. - publisher's description
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f6124e46a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+---
+title: "Criticism of nonstandard analysis"
+chunk: 1/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:38.400334+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Nonstandard analysis and its offshoot, nonstandard calculus, have been criticized by several authors, notably Errett Bishop, Paul Halmos, and Alain Connes.  These criticisms are analyzed below.
+
+== Introduction ==
+The evaluation of nonstandard analysis in the literature has varied greatly. Paul Halmos described it as a technical special development in mathematical logic. Terence Tao summed up the advantage of the hyperreal framework by noting that it
+
+allows one to rigorously manipulate things such as "the set of all small numbers", or to rigorously say things like "η1 is smaller than anything that involves η0", while greatly reducing epsilon management issues by automatically concealing many of the quantifiers in one's argument.
+The nature of the criticisms is not directly related to the logical status of the results proved using nonstandard analysis. In terms of conventional mathematical foundations in classical logic, such results are quite acceptable although usually strongly dependent on choice.  Abraham Robinson's nonstandard analysis does not need any axioms beyond Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZFC) (as shown explicitly by Wilhelmus Luxemburg's ultrapower construction of the hyperreals), while its variant by Edward Nelson, known as internal set theory, is similarly a conservative extension of ZFC. It provides an assurance that the newness of nonstandard analysis is entirely as a strategy of proof, not in range of results. Further, model theoretic nonstandard analysis, for example based on superstructures, which is now a commonly used approach, does not need any new set-theoretic axioms beyond those of ZFC.
+Controversy has existed on issues of mathematical pedagogy. Also nonstandard analysis as developed is not the only candidate to fulfill the aims of a theory of infinitesimals (see Smooth infinitesimal analysis). Philip J. Davis wrote, in a book review of Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms by Diane Ravitch:
+
+There was the nonstandard analysis movement for teaching elementary calculus. Its stock rose a bit before the movement collapsed from inner complexity and scant necessity.
+Nonstandard calculus in the classroom has been analysed in the study by K. Sullivan of schools in the Chicago area, as reflected in secondary literature at Influence of nonstandard analysis.  Sullivan showed that students following the nonstandard analysis course were better able to interpret the sense of the mathematical formalism of calculus than a control group following a standard syllabus.  This was also noted by Artigue (1994), page 172; Chihara (2007); and Dauben (1988).
+
+== Bishop's criticism ==
+In the view of Errett Bishop, classical mathematics, which includes Robinson's approach to nonstandard analysis, was nonconstructive and therefore deficient in numerical meaning (Feferman 2000).  Bishop was particularly concerned about the use of nonstandard analysis in teaching  as he discussed in his essay "Crisis in mathematics" (Bishop 1975).  Specifically, after discussing Hilbert's formalist program he wrote:
+
+A more recent attempt at mathematics by formal finesse is non-standard analysis.  I gather that it has met with some degree of success, whether at the expense of giving significantly less meaningful proofs I do not know.  My interest in non-standard analysis is that attempts are being made to introduce it into calculus courses.  It is difficult to believe that debasement of meaning could be carried so far.
+Katz & Katz (2010) note that a number of criticisms were voiced by the participating mathematicians and historians following Bishop's "Crisis" talk, at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences workshop in 1974. However, not a word was said by the participants about Bishop's debasement of Robinson's theory. Katz & Katz point out that it recently came to light that Bishop in fact said not a word about Robinson's theory at the workshop, and only added his debasement remark at the galley proof stage of publication.  This helps explain the absence of critical reactions at the workshop.  Katz & Katz conclude that this raises issues of integrity on the part of Bishop whose published text does not report the fact that the "debasement" comment was added at galley stage and therefore was not heard by the workshop participants, creating a spurious impression that they did not disagree with the comments.
+The fact that Bishop viewed the introduction of nonstandard analysis in the classroom as a "debasement of meaning" was noted by J. Dauben.  The term was clarified by Bishop (1985, p. 1) in his text Schizophrenia in contemporary mathematics (first distributed in 1973), as follows:
+
+Brouwer's criticisms of classical mathematics were concerned with what I shall refer to as "the debasement of meaning".
+Thus, Bishop first applied the term "debasement of meaning" to classical mathematics as a whole, and later applied it to Robinson's infinitesimals in the classroom.  In his Foundations of Constructive Analysis (1967, page ix), Bishop wrote:
+
+Our program is simple: To give numerical meaning to as much as possible of classical abstract analysis. Our motivation is the well-known scandal, exposed by Brouwer (and others) in great detail, that classical mathematics is deficient in numerical meaning.
+Bishop's remarks are supported by the discussion following his lecture:
+
+George Mackey (Harvard): "I don't want to think about these questions. I have faith that what I am doing will have some kind of meaning...."
+Garrett Birkhoff (Harvard): "...I think this is what Bishop is urging. We should keep track of our assumptions and keep an open mind."
+Shreeram Abhyankar: (Purdue): "My paper is in complete sympathy with Bishop's position."
+J. P. Kahane (U. de Paris): "...I have to respect Bishop's work but I find it boring...."
+Bishop (UCSD): "Most mathematicians feel that mathematics has meaning but it bores them to try to find out what it is...."
+Kahane: "I feel that Bishop's appreciation has more significance than my lack of appreciation."
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis-1.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..cb036d9b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis-1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+---
+title: "Criticism of nonstandard analysis"
+chunk: 2/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:38.400334+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Bishop's review ===
+Bishop reviewed the book Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach by Howard Jerome Keisler, which presented elementary calculus using the methods of nonstandard analysis. Bishop was chosen by his advisor Paul Halmos to review the book.  The review appeared in the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society in 1977.  This article is referred to by David O. Tall (Tall 2001) while discussing the use of nonstandard analysis in education. Tall wrote:
+
+the use of the axiom of choice in the non-standard approach however, draws extreme criticism from those such as Bishop (1977) who insisted on explicit construction of concepts in the intuitionist tradition.
+Bishop's review supplied several quotations from Keisler's book, such as:
+
+In 1960, Robinson solved a three-hundred-year-old problem by giving a precise treatment of infinitesimals.  Robinson's achievement will probably rank as one of the major mathematical advances of the twentieth century.
+and
+
+In discussing the real line we remarked that we have no way of knowing what a line in physical space is really like. It might be like the hyperreal line, the real line, or neither.  However, in applications of the calculus, it is helpful to imagine a line in physical space as a hyperreal line.
+The review criticized Keisler's text for not providing evidence to support these statements, and for adopting an axiomatic approach when it was not clear to the students there was any system that satisfied the axioms (Tall 1980). The review ended as follows:
+
+The technical complications introduced by Keisler's approach are of minor
+importance. The real damage lies in [Keisler's] obfuscation and devitalization of those
+wonderful ideas [of standard calculus]. No invocation of Newton and Leibniz is going to justify
+developing calculus using axioms V* and VI*-on the grounds that the usual
+definition of a limit is too complicated!
+
+and
+
+Although it seems to be futile, I always tell my calculus students that mathematics is not esoteric: It is common sense. (Even the notorious (ε, δ)-definition of limit is common sense, and moreover it is central to the important practical problems of approximation and estimation.) They do not believe me. In fact the idea makes them uncomfortable because it contradicts their previous experience. Now we have a calculus text that can be used to confirm their experience of mathematics as an esoteric and meaningless exercise in technique.
+
+=== Responses ===
+In his response in The Notices, Keisler (1977, p. 269) asked:
+
+why did Paul Halmos, the Bulletin book review editor, choose a constructivist as the reviewer?
+Comparing the use of the law of excluded middle (rejected by constructivists) to wine, Keisler likened Halmos' choice with "choosing a teetotaller to sample wine".
+Bishop's book review was subsequently criticized in the same journal by Martin Davis, who wrote on p. 1008 of Davis (1977):
+
+Keisler's book is an attempt to bring back the intuitively suggestive Leibnizian methods that dominated the teaching of calculus until comparatively recently, and which have never been discarded in parts of applied mathematics. A reader of Errett Bishop's review of Keisler's book would hardly imagine that this is what Keisler was trying to do, since the review discusses neither Keisler's objectives nor the extent to which his book realizes them.
+Davis added (p. 1008) that Bishop stated his objections
+
+without informing his readers of the constructivist context in which this objection is presumably to be understood.
+Physicist Vadim Komkov (1977, p. 270) wrote:
+
+Bishop is one of the foremost researchers favoring the constructive approach to mathematical analysis. It is hard for a constructivist to be sympathetic to theories replacing the real numbers by hyperreals.
+Whether or not nonstandard analysis can be done constructively, Komkov perceived a foundational concern on Bishop's part.
+Philosopher of Mathematics Geoffrey Hellman (1993, p. 222) wrote:
+
+Some of Bishop's remarks (1967) suggest that his position belongs in [the radical constructivist] category ...
+Historian of Mathematics Joseph Dauben analyzed Bishop's criticism in (1988, p. 192). After evoking the "success" of nonstandard analysis
+
+at the most elementary level at which it could be introduced—namely, at which calculus is taught for the first time,
+Dauben stated:
+
+there is also a deeper level of meaning at which nonstandard analysis operates.
+Dauben mentioned "impressive" applications in
+
+physics, especially quantum theory and thermodynamics, and in economics, where study of exchange economies has been particularly amenable to nonstandard interpretation.
+At this "deeper" level of meaning, Dauben concluded,
+
+Bishop's views can be questioned and shown to be as unfounded as his objections to nonstandard analysis pedagogically.
+A number of authors have commented on the tone of Bishop's book review. Artigue (1992) described it as virulent; Dauben (1996), as vitriolic; Davis and Hauser (1978), as hostile; Tall (2001), as extreme.
+Ian Stewart (1986) compared Halmos' asking Bishop to review Keisler's book, to inviting Margaret Thatcher to review Das Kapital.
+Katz & Katz (2010) point out that
+
+Bishop is criticizing apples for not being oranges: the critic (Bishop) and the criticized (Robinson's non-standard analysis) do not share a common foundational framework.
+They further note that
+
+Bishop's preoccupation with the extirpation of the law of excluded middle led him to criticize classical mathematics as a whole in as vitriolic a manner as his criticism of non-standard analysis.
+G. Stolzenberg responded to Keisler's Notices criticisms of Bishop's review in a letter, also published in The Notices. Stolzenberg argues that the criticism of Bishop's review of Keisler's calculus book is based on the false assumption that they were made in a constructivist mindset whereas Stolzenberg believes that Bishop read it as it was meant to be read: in a classical mindset.
+
+== Connes' criticism ==
+In "Brisure de symétrie spontanée et géométrie du point de vue spectral", Journal of Geometry and Physics 23 (1997), 206–234, Alain Connes wrote:
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis-2.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..de2d0aaf6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis-2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+---
+title: "Criticism of nonstandard analysis"
+chunk: 3/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:38.400334+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+"The answer given by non-standard analysis, namely a nonstandard real, is equally disappointing: every non-standard real canonically determines a (Lebesgue) non-measurable subset of the interval [0, 1], so that it is impossible (Stern, 1985) to exhibit a single [nonstandard real number]. The formalism that we propose will give a substantial and computable answer to this question."
+In his 1995 article "Noncommutative geometry and reality" Connes develops a calculus of infinitesimals based on operators in Hilbert space. He proceeds to "explain why the formalism of nonstandard analysis is inadequate" for his purposes. Connes points out the following three aspects of Robinson's hyperreals:
+(1) a nonstandard hyperreal "cannot be exhibited" (the reason given being its relation to nonmeasurable sets);
+(2) "the practical use of such a notion is limited to computations in which the final result is independent of the exact value of the above infinitesimal. This is the way nonstandard analysis and ultraproducts are used [...]".
+(3) the hyperreals are commutative.
+Katz & Katz analyze Connes' criticisms of nonstandard analysis, and challenge the specific claims (1) and (2).  With regard to (1), Connes' own infinitesimals similarly rely on non-constructive foundational material, such as the existence of a Dixmier trace.  With regard to (2), Connes presents the independence of the choice of infinitesimal as a feature of his own theory.
+Kanovei et al. (2012) analyze Connes' contention that nonstandard numbers are "chimerical".  They note that the content of his criticism is that ultrafilters are "chimerical", and point out that Connes exploited ultrafilters in an essential manner in his earlier work in functional analysis. They analyze Connes' claim that the hyperreal theory is merely "virtual".  Connes' references to the work of Robert Solovay suggest that Connes means to criticize the hyperreals for allegedly not being definable.  If so, Connes' claim concerning the hyperreals is demonstrably incorrect, given the existence of a definable model of the hyperreals constructed by Vladimir Kanovei and Saharon Shelah (2004). Kanovei et al. (2012) also provide a chronological table of increasingly vitriolic epithets employed by Connes to denigrate nonstandard analysis over the period between 1995 and 2007, starting with "inadequate" and "disappointing" and culminating with "the end of the road for being 'explicit'".
+Katz & Leichtnam (2013) note that "two-thirds of Connes' critique of Robinson's infinitesimal approach can be said to be incoherent, in the specific sense of not being coherent with what Connes writes (approvingly) about his own infinitesimal approach."
+
+== Halmos' remarks ==
+Paul Halmos writes in "Invariant subspaces", American Mathematical Monthly 85 (1978) 182–183 as follows:
+
+"the extension to polynomially compact operators was obtained by Bernstein and Robinson (1966). They presented their result in the metamathematical language called non-standard analysis, but, as it was realized very soon, that was a matter of personal preference, not necessity."
+Halmos writes in (Halmos 1985) as follows (p. 204):
+
+The Bernstein–Robinson proof [of the invariant subspace conjecture of Halmos]  uses non-standard models of higher order predicate languages, and when [Robinson] sent me his reprint I really had to sweat to pinpoint and translate its mathematical insight.
+While commenting on the "role of non-standard analysis in mathematics", Halmos writes (p. 204):
+
+For some other[... mathematicians], who are against it (for instance Errett Bishop), it's an equally emotional issue...
+Halmos concludes his discussion of nonstandard analysis as follows (p. 204):
+
+it's a special tool, too special, and other tools can do everything it does.  It's all a matter of taste.
+Katz & Katz (2010) note that
+
+Halmos's anxiousness to evaluate Robinson's theory may have involved a conflict of interests [...] Halmos invested considerable emotional energy (and sweat, as he memorably puts it in his autobiography) into his translation of the Bernstein–Robinson result [...] [H]is blunt unflattering comments appear to retroactively justify his translationist attempt to deflect the impact of one of the first spectacular applications of Robinson's theory.
+
+== Comments by Bos and Medvedev ==
+Leibniz historian Henk Bos (1974) acknowledged that Robinson's hyperreals provide
+
+[a] preliminary explanation of why the calculus could develop on the insecure foundation of the acceptance of infinitely small and infinitely large quantities.
+F. Medvedev (1998) further points out that
+
+[n]onstandard analysis makes it possible to answer a delicate question bound up with earlier approaches to the history of classical analysis. If infinitely small and infinitely large magnitudes are regarded as inconsistent notions, how could they [have] serve[d] as a basis for the construction of so [magnificent] an edifice of one of the most important mathematical disciplines?
+
+== See also ==
+Constructive nonstandard analysis
+Influence of nonstandard analysis
+
+== Notes ==
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis-3.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..8eaa1ba8d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis-3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+---
+title: "Criticism of nonstandard analysis"
+chunk: 4/4
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_nonstandard_analysis"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:38.400334+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== References ==
+Albeverio, S.; Guido, D.; Ponosov, A.; Scarlatti, S. (1996). "Singular traces and compact operators". J. Funct. Anal. 137 (2): 281–302. doi:10.1006/jfan.1996.0047. S2CID 55846784.
+Artigue, Michèle (1994), Analysis, Advanced Mathematical Thinking (ed. David O. Tall), Springer-Verlag, p. 172, ISBN 0-7923-2812-4
+Bishop, Errett (1975), "The crisis in contemporary mathematics", Historia Math., 2 (4): 507–517, doi:10.1016/0315-0860(75)90113-5
+Bishop, Errett (1977), "Review: H. Jerome Keisler, Elementary calculus", Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 83: 205–208, doi:10.1090/s0002-9904-1977-14264-x
+Bishop, E. (1983). "Schizophrenia in contemporary mathematics".  Written at San Diego, Calif.. Errett Bishop: reflections on him and his research. Contemp. Math. Vol. 39. Providence, RI: Amer. Math. Soc. (published 1985). pp. 1–32.
+Bos, Henk J. M. (1974), "Differentials, higher-order differentials and the derivative in the Leibnizian calculus", Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 14: 1–90, doi:10.1007/BF00327456, S2CID 120779114
+Chihara, C. (2007). "The Burgess–Rosen critique of nominalistic reconstructions". Philos. Math. 15 (1): 54–78. doi:10.1093/philmat/nkl023.
+Connes, A. (1997). "Brisure de symétrie spontanée et géométrie du point de vue spectral" (PDF). Journal of Geometry and Physics. 23 (3–4): 206–234. Bibcode:1997JGP....23..206C. doi:10.1016/s0393-0440(97)80001-0.
+Connes, A. (1995). "Noncommutative geometry and reality" (PDF). J. Math. Phys. 36 (11): 6194–6231. Bibcode:1995JMP....36.6194C. doi:10.1063/1.531241.
+Dauben, J. (1988). "Abraham Robinson and Nonstandard Analysis: History, Philosophy, and Foundations of Mathematics" (PDF). In Aspray, William; Kitcher, Philip (eds.). History and philosophy of modern mathematics. Minnesota Stud. Philos. Sci. Vol. XI. Minneapolis, MN: Univ. Minnesota Press. pp. 177–200.
+Dauben, J. (1992).  Written at Essen. "Arguments, logic and proof: mathematics, logic and the infinite. History of mathematics and education: ideas and experiences". Stud. Wiss. Soz. Bildungsgesch. Math. 11. Göttingen.: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (published 1996): 113–148.
+Davis, Martin (1977), "Review: J. Donald Monk, Mathematical logic", Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 83: 1007–1011, doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1977-14357-7
+Davis, M.; Hausner, M. (1978). "Book review. The Joy of Infinitesimals. J. Keisler's Elementary Calculus". Mathematical Intelligencer. 1: 168–170. doi:10.1007/BF03023265. S2CID 121679411.
+Feferman, Solomon (2000), "Relationships between constructive, predicative and classical systems of analysis", Synthese Library, 125 (292), Kluwer Academic Publishers Group: 317–332, doi:10.1023/A:1005223128130, S2CID 46283088; online PDF.
+Gordon, E.I.; Kusraev, A.G. (2002). Kutateladze S.S. Infinitesimal Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4020-0738-5..
+Halmos, Paul R. (1985). I want to be a mathematician: An automathography. New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0-387-96078-3.
+Hellman, Geoffrey (1993). "Constructive Mathematics and Quantum Mechanics: Unbounded Operators and the Spectral Theorem". Journal of Philosophical Logic. 12 (3): 221–248. doi:10.1007/BF01049303. S2CID 8676552.
+Kanovei, Vladimir; Katz, Mikhail G.; Mormann, Thomas (2012), "Tools, Objects, and Chimeras: Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics", Foundations of Science, 18 (2): 259–296, arXiv:1211.0244, Bibcode:2012arXiv1211.0244K, doi:10.1007/s10699-012-9316-5, S2CID 7631073
+Kanovei, Vladimir; Shelah, Saharon (2004). "A definable nonstandard model of the reals". Journal of Symbolic Logic. 69 (1): 159–164. arXiv:math/0311165. doi:10.2178/jsl/1080938834. S2CID 15104702.
+Katz, Karin; Katz, Mikhail (2010). "When is .999... less than 1?". The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast. 7 (1): 3–30. arXiv:1007.3018. doi:10.54870/1551-3440.1381. S2CID 11544878. Archived from the original on 2011-07-20.
+Katz, Karin Usadi; Katz, Mikhail G. (2011), "Meaning in Classical Mathematics: Is it at Odds with Intuitionism?", Intellectica, 56 (2): 223–302, arXiv:1110.5456, Bibcode:2011arXiv1110.5456U
+Katz, Mikhail G.; Leichtnam, Eric (2013), "Commuting and noncommuting infinitesimals", American Mathematical Monthly, 120 (7): 631–641, arXiv:1304.0583, Bibcode:2013arXiv1304.0583K, doi:10.4169/amer.math.monthly.120.07.631, S2CID 35391617
+Keisler, H. Jerome (1977). "Letter to the editor". Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 24: 269.
+Komkov, Vadim (1977). "Letter to the editor". Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 24 (5): 269–271.
+Medvedev, F. A. (1998). "Nonstandard analysis and the history of classical analysis. Translated by Abe Shenitzer". Amer. Math. Monthly. 105 (7): 659–664. doi:10.2307/2589253. JSTOR 2589253.
+Stolzenberg, Gabriel (1978). "Letters to the editor" (PDF). Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 25 (4): 242.
+Stewart, Ian (1986). "Frog and Mouse revisited". Mathematical Intelligencer: 78–82.
+Sullivan, Kathleen (1976), "The Teaching of Elementary Calculus Using the Nonstandard Analysis Approach", The American Mathematical Monthly, 83 (5): 370–375, doi:10.2307/2318657, JSTOR 2318657
+Tall, David (1980), Intuitive infinitesimals in the calculus (poster) (PDF), Fourth International Congress on Mathematics Education, Berkeley
+Tall, David (2001), "Natural and Formal Infinities", Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48 (2–3), Springer Netherlands: 199–238, doi:10.1023/A:1016000710038
+
+== External links ==
+Online version of Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach
+S. Kutateladze "Teaching Calculus"
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_life-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_life-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..08065d2e0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_life-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+---
+title: "Definition of life"
+chunk: 1/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_life"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:39.577696+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The precise definition of life is a contested aspect of it, and several proposals have been advanced. Biology defines and studies life as we know it, but abiogenesis and astrobiology seek wider and more encompassing definitions. Abiogenesis is the process by which life develops from inorganic materials, so a definition aims to establish the frontier between inorganic matter and the earliest lifeforms. Astrobiology seeks extraterrestrial life, which may differ from life on Earth.
+
+== Common features ==
+
+Life does not have a simple definition, because life on Earth has a huge diversity, ranging from microscopic microorganisms to massive plants and trees, and in all sorts of habitats. A common way to define life is by using a number of characteristics that should be common to all life forms. However, those characteristics are not universal, and there are exceptions and possible false positives with all of them. The main ones include:
+
+Order: The elements that make up life are not randomly distributed. There is a biological organisation at all levels of life, from the microscopic cell to a full organism and even to the groups of several organisms. However, order is a necessary but not sufficient condition for life, as other structures like crystal rocks are also capable of displaying order. At the atomic level, atoms and molecules have order, but they are not considered to be alive, only to be the building blocks of life.
+Reproduction: Living organisms are capable of reproduction, a process where an individual organism can create a new, independent organism that is almost similar to the original. Cells reproduce by splitting, larger organisms may use more complex processes such as sexual reproduction. Hybrids like mules and individuals incapable of reproduction as a result of infertility or other diseases are not considered exceptions, as they were born by the reproduction of other individuals. Reproduction may likely be a universal trait of life, as it allows life to persist despite the eventual death of individuals.
+Growth: All living organism grow and develop during part or all of their life cycle. This follows patterns directed at least in part by heredity. However, growth alone is not enough to define life, as fire can grow but is not alive.
+Homeostasis: All Earth lifeforms use energy for their internal work, and it is unlikely for any potential extraterrestrial life to be different about that. From a physical point of view, a lifeform is a thermodynamic system, and the second law of thermodynamics means that if left alone it would gradually lose its internal energy, leading to increased disorder within its components, causing its biological death. To avoid that, the lifeform requires a frequent source of energy. Usually it is food, matter that is transformed by the lifeform's internal biology into usable energy, in line with the first law of thermodynamics. In turn, the environment needs an external source of energy (such as sunlight or the planet's internal heat) so that the lifeforms do not deplete the free energy. It is unlikely that life can exist long-term without such a source of energy.
+Interaction with the environment: All lifeforms react in some way to certain stimulus, changes in the environment. Plants may grow in the direction of sunlight as a result of phototropism to aid their photosynthesis, and animals may leave cold areas for warmer ones to keep their internal heat within acceptable levels.
+Evolution: Living organisms interact with their environment, and with other organisms, both from their same species and from others. Evolution is a process that makes new organisms, generated by reproduction, to be better suited for those interactions.
+Trivial definitions of life, such as those used in dictionaries and science divulgation, rely on several aspects that should take place in it, such as homeostasis, growth, reproduction, and death. Biology, however, provides a more reliable answer: all lifeforms on Earth are composed of cells (both unicellular and multicellular lifeforms), and reproduction replicates information from an ancestor into its offspring with the work of the DNA and the RNA. All lifeforms on Earth have this in common, and nothing that does not live does. It is, thus, a perfect working definition for most sciences. However, it is an incomplete definition for abiogenesis, the science that studies the origin of life. Earth began completely lifeless, and by some unclear chemistry inorganic materials combined themselves and created life. But life as we know it is too complex to appear abruptly, the process must have had steps, and we would require a better definition of life to decide which of those steps can be considered lifeforms, even if more primitive. As for astrobiology, all lifeforms known to us are from a single planet. Life in other planets may have developed in other ways, and we would need a broader definition that would cover such divergent lifeforms as well.
+
+== Problems ==
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_life-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_life-1.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..cd8d6edc6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_life-1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+---
+title: "Definition of life"
+chunk: 2/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_life"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:39.577696+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+A problem with defining life by a number of characteristics is that it can provide false positives. Long and detailed lists leave potential lifeforms out, and small lists may include things that were not intended to be considered alive. For example, Crystals can grow and tend towards equilibrium, similar to homeostasis, but are not alive. Robert Saphiro and Gerald Feinberg proposed that life is the activity of a biosphere, defining biosphere as "a highly ordered system of matter and energy characterized by complex cycles that maintain or gradually increase the order of the system through the exchange of energy with the environment"; a definition that may be too broad. There are four possible ways to organize a definition. The first one is that there are a number of features and all of them must apply for something to be alive; if something has only some features but not others, then it is not. This is the method used by divulgation outlets. The second is that there is a single necessary and sufficient condition that can define the presence or absence of life. The third is that there are several necessary and sufficient conditions that define life; this is the one used in science. And finally, there may be several types of life without a common characteristic between them all.
+Dr. Carol Cleland, a member of the NASA Astrobiology Institute, considers that the problem is caused by the vagueness of spoken language, and that science does not need a definition of life, but rather a general theory of living systems. She compares the problems defining life with the problems defining substances in the Middle Ages, before the discovery of molecules, and points out that nitric acid was considered a type of water back then because it shared some superficial properties. However, a general theory can not be formulated before a sample of extraterrestrial life can be found and studied. At this point, there is not enough data to formulate such a theory, as it is unknown if life is abundant in the universe or just a rarity exclusive of Earth.
+Life on Earth is carbon-based life, and uses water as a solvent. It is often assumed that life in other planets may have a similar composition, disregarding hypothetical types of biochemistry. Scientist Carl Sagan defined it as "carbon chauvinism". However, as those lifeforms are only theoretical, the details of their metabolism are unknown and it would be complex to define what to seek when seeking such lifeforms. However, although it is accepted that life can be composed of substances other than carbon and water, their properties still make them the better ones suited for it.
+The NASA defines life as a "self-sustaining chemical reaction capable of Darwinian evolution". Adaptation works with natural selection, but it is unclear if human beings are still subject to it. In nature unfit creatures would not reproduce and would not pass their genes to later beings, ensuring that only the best individuals did so, but human beings are capable of compassion and to practice medicine, which may negate the process. And it's hard to test a being and detect if it's capable of evolution, as evolution takes place in the species over time and not in specific individuals. It is also unclear if Darwinian evolution is a feature of all life, or just a characteristic of life on Earth. However, no credible alternative to it has been formulated. Evolution can also find false-positives such as computer virus coded with evolutionary algorithms. Evolution does not explain either the origin of life, which is understood to be the result of abiogenesis, a chemical evolution rather than a biological one. It is still unclear if it would be possible to recognize the first organism capable of evolution: some scientists think that had to be a clear first living organism, and others that it would be a slow process with several stages.
+
+=== Viruses ===
+Viruses pose a challenge to the formulation of a definition of life, because of their unique system of reproduction. They are incapable of reproduction on their own, but they can reproduce by infecting a living cell and exploiting its reproduction for their own benefit. As a result, they are considered a borderline case, in the frontier between the living and non-living. Prions, abnormal protein molecules, are another borderline case, as they are also incapable of reproduction, but can infect other proteins and turn them into prions. Meaning, they don't make copies of themselves, but they increase their numbers by turning others. They are usually considered non-living, although they present some ambiguity.
+
+== History ==
+
+=== Aristotle ===
+
+Aristotle emphasized that theory should be based on empirical investigations. He studied animal life by observation, experimentation, and dissection. He distinguished living things by their ability to use food, reproduce, perceive, move, and think. He compared the structure and actions of a living thing to the blueprints and tools used to build a house, as everything is prearranged to reach a desired end state. He noted that a house does not get built or maintained by itself and requires actual planning and work by humans, whereas living organisms build and regenerate themselves. This was difficult to reconcile with a mechanistic conception of causation, so he postulated a special form of natural causation, the "soul", that allows living things to be self-causing. He posited four types of causation: efficient, material, formal, and final. The concept of a soul allows animals to have final causations without an external guiding hand.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_life-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_life-2.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ae3d0ec23
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_life-2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+---
+title: "Definition of life"
+chunk: 3/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_life"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:39.577696+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Mechanism to vitalism ===
+Aristotelianism was questioned in the 1630s by René Descartes in Treatise on Man, which described living beings as automata, built on muscles, bones, and organs instead of cogs and pistons. Shortly afterwards Isaac Newton postulated the three laws of motion, and final causation was no longer considered valid. However, as the knowledge about plants and animals grew, it soon became clear that their working was fundamentally different to that of artificial machines. Scientists proposed vitalism to explain that a "vital force" made living organisms work.
+In the 18th century, Immanuel Kant said that living organisms are built with a design, but as nature lacks a designer, it could only mean that living beings are naturally teleological and incapable of being explained purely by a framework of forces like Newton's laws of motion.
+
+=== Emergentism ===
+In 1828, Friedrich Wöhler synthesised urea, plainly a chemical of life, launching the discipline of organic chemistry. This supported the view that life was built out of chemical reactions. This philosophical viewpoint, later called emergentism, rejected vitalism. It proposed instead that living matter is composed by the same basic physical stuff as non-living matter, and is subject to the laws of physics. As matter organization grows, it generates new properties and patterns that can not be explained at the level of physics.
+In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species. It argued in its closing paragraph that "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one", and that "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." He intentionally avoided the question of the origin of life, but assumed that life could have emerged from non-living matter. More recently, scientists have come to see both life and the origin of life as processes governed by the laws of chemistry.
+
+== References ==
+
+== Bibliography ==
+Aguilera Mochón, Juan Antonio (2016). La vida no terrestre: estamos solos en el universo? [Non-terrestrial life: are we alone in the universe?] (in Spanish). Spain: RBA. ISBN 978-84-473-8665-9.
+Bennett, Jeffrey (2017). Life in the universe. United States: Pearson. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-0-13-408908-9.
+Cleland, Carol (2019). The quest for a universal theory of life. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-87324-6.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Bergson_debate-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Bergson_debate-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0a62c3f0a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Bergson_debate-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+title: "Einstein–Bergson debate"
+chunk: 1/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Bergson_debate"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:42.156437+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+On April 6, 1922, the physicist Albert Einstein and the philosopher Henri Bergson met at the Société française de philosophie and discussed the implications of the theory of relativity on the nature of time. This debate, with the broader discussion it set off, has had wide-ranging implications for Western cosmology and for the prestige of the humanities as compared to science. In 1934, Paul Valéry wrote that the meeting between these two thinkers was the "grande affaire" of the twentieth century.
+
+== Context ==
+
+=== Bergson ===
+
+Henri Bergson was widely viewed as an epoch-defining thinker. For William James, Bergson's Creative Evolution was a work as important for Western philosophy as those of George Berkeley or Immanuel Kant; Jean Wahl concurs, placing Bergson alongside Plato, René Descartes and Kant as one of "the four great philosophers." A cult of personality developed around Bergson following the 1907 publication of Creative Evolution: students would make "mystical pilgrimages" to his summer home in Switzerland; he was referred to as "an enchanter" and "the greatest thinker in the world." His biographer Emily Herring refers to him as being in the early twentieth century "the most famous philosopher in the world." Bergson had a deep influence on the arts: facets of his thinking fascinated Modernists from Virginia Woolf and T.S. Eliot to the Italian Futurists. He captured the imagination of the wider public as well: his lectures were immensely popular with Parisian society, especially with women (a fact which led to accusations by contemporary critics that his thought was incurably irrationalist and his style effeminate), and, according to legend, the first traffic jam on New York City's Broadway was caused by a lecture Bergson was going to give at Columbia University.
+At the heart of Bergson's philosophy is the élan vital, an evolutionary impulse he proposes is behind all change. The élan vital (sometimes translated as "vital impulse") is the energy of life understood as pure creation struggling against entropy and decay. Such a principle is logically called for, according to Bergson, because traditional mechanistic and teleological explanations of change struggle to account for true creative progress, which requires something to be added to the evolving being that was not already latent before. "Life, like conscious activity, is invention, is unceasing creation,” Bergson writes in Creative Evolution. For him, only true creativity can explain the diverse products of evolution in consideration of the continuity of life. The true nature of time, which Bergson calls duration [la durée], is an effect of consciousness where memory accrues and penetrates into the present, meaning that no moment presented to a being can ever be the same as one experienced before. Time is therefore not the series of discrete states of being which our senses inscribe as time, and which Bergson compares to colored beads on the string of the ego. Because the senses are a product of evolution, they cannot comprehend the process of evolution itself; they arose as practical means of understanding how a being can act on a given object, and perceive only that potential for action. Intellect, which is essentially quantitative and pragmatic, cannot understand the qualitative nature of duration and the élan vital; according to Bergson, intellect tends to think of time in terms of space. His philosophy therefore places a specific sort of intuition over intellect in its immediacy of access to reality. This intuition would be a sort of sympathy which would penetrate the object, rather than perceiving only its exterior.
+Bergson's philosophy had always had important critics. Bertrand Russell mounted a years-long polemic against Bergson, accusing the latter of anti-intellectualism and poetic vagueness; he specifically objects to a supposed "confusion between an act of knowing and that which is known," and to the political implications of Bergson's doctrine of intuition. In a memorable quip, Russell writes that "intellect is the misfortune of man, while instinct is seen at its best in ants, bees, and Bergson." Isaiah Berlin criticized Bergson as having contributed to the "abandonment of rigorous critical standards and the substitution in their place of casual emotional responses." Georgi Plekhanov wrote an important Marxist critique of Bergson that centers on Bergson's severing of creative power from the force of history. The Catholic Church placed Bergson's works on its Index of Prohibited Books.
+When Einstein first expounded his theory of relativity, Bergson was sympathetic, and believed in "the agreement between relativity and my views on space and spatial time." In 1912, Henri Poincaré, an important precursor of relativity theory, had stated that "[t]he time of scientists comes out of Bergsonian duration." Bergson devoted careful study to the mathematics underlying the theory. However, he soon perceived that Einstein's understanding of time would have to be set apart from his own; though he accepted it in the field of physics, he believed that relativity could not be seen as governing the lived experience of time. He would seek to argue that Einstein's theory grafts a metaphysics onto science, and should be seen as viable within the abstract domain of physics, but not in the reality beyond.
+
+=== Einstein ===
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Bergson_debate-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Bergson_debate-1.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..4336f8503
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Bergson_debate-1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+title: "Einstein–Bergson debate"
+chunk: 2/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Bergson_debate"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:42.156437+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Einstein's theory of relativity and his contributions to quantum theory had made him a household name in the scientific community, and by 1919 he even became a public celebrity after the solar eclipse of May 29, 1919, which helped substantiate Einstein's theory of general relativity, with the New York Times proclaiming: “Revolution in Science/New Theory of the Universe/Newtonian Ideas Overthrown.” The new doctrine was widely regarded as necessitating a total overhaul of current understandings of space and time. Einstein's fame had proliferated through his own efforts as well: he had published popular versions of both his treatises, and his Four Lectures on Relativity (delivered in 1921 at Princeton University) had intensified public interest even further. Einstein was invited to France by Paul Langevin, on behalf of the Collège de France, to help “to restore relations between German and French scholars” after World War I, a conflict whose mechanization had enlisted scientists in the service of bloodshed to a previously unprecedented degree. Einstein had opposed the war. On his arrival at the Gare du Nord, Einstein was greeted by crowds of "photographers, reporters, filmmakers, officials and diplomats," and had to slip out a side door to escape the attention. The debate involved some reputational risk for Einstein. He was expecting to win the Nobel Prize that year, and had already promised the prize money as alimony to his ex-wife. Furthermore, his rhetorical skills would be handicapped due to his lack of fluency in French. The debate was not intended as a solo confrontation between Einstein and Bergson; Einstein was to field questions from the whole College, of which Bergson was only a single member.
+Einstein's theory proposed that the speed of light in a vacuum is both constant and unsurpassable, regardless of the viewer's movement or location, necessitating that time passes at different rates for different reference frames, based on their velocity. Two clocks moving at two different speeds might therefore show different, yet equally correct times. This was a rejection of the Newtonian absolutism that had previously characterized the attitude of physicists toward time. However, this does not preclude Einstein from believing that time has "an objective meaning [...] independent of individuals," and is quantifiable and predictable. Einstein's theory meant that time and space were no longer universal, and it disposed of the aether that was believed at the time to fill empty space. Einstein initially was an empiricist/positivist in line with Ernst Mach who took the input of the senses at face value, and his theories were deterministic, making no room for creativity, even though starting in the early 1920s he distanced himself from positivism and began to embrace philosophical realism. Einstein had a longstanding distaste for Bergson's ideas. In 1914, he described Bergson's philosophy as "flaccid," and remarked that Bergson's work was not even worth reading to improve his French. After the debate, though acknowledging that Bergson had understood the substance of relativity theory, he reaffirmed his belief that “[t]he philosophers constantly dance around the dichotomy: the psychologically real and physically real, and differ only in evaluations in this regard.”
+
+== Remarks of April 6 ==
+Xavier Léon, who had organized the event, introduced Einstein; Langevin spoke next, outlining Einstein's contribution to physics for those present. Einstein then fielded questions from several philosophers, including Léon Brunschvicg, whose question about relativity and Kant's conception of science Einstein shrugged off. Finally, Édouard Le Roy, a student of Bergson's, moved for Bergson to weigh in. Bergson was initially reluctant, saying that he "had come here to listen." For the most part, he praised Einstein's theory, saying that it could be admitted within the domain of physics, but argued that philosophy still had important contributions to make in the understanding of time, and that "all does not end" with relativity. He spoke for thirty minutes, quoting certain passages from his forthcoming book "Duration and Simultaneity"; Einstein took only a minute to respond. The response rested on distinguishing physical from psychological time as a pair of binary options, making no room for a philosophical understanding of time: "The time of the philosophers does not exist" (French: Il n'y a donc pas un temps des philosophes).
+Minutes of the meeting can be seen here (in French).
+
+== The debate continues ==
+
+=== Einstein's Nobel Prize ===
+When Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1921, it was not for relativity, but for "his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect." The presenter of the prize, Professor Svante Arrhenius, mentioned Bergson by name, saying that "though most discussion centers on [Einstein's] theory of relativity," Bergson had shown that relativity "pertains essentially to epistemology," rather than to physics, from which some concluded that Bergson's arguments were the reason that Einstein could not be awarded the Nobel Prize in that subject. Ironically, when Bergson was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1927, the presentation speech focused on his accomplishments as "stylist and poet," rather than on his contributions to philosophy. However, others have argued that Bergson's arguments played no essential role in denying Einstein the Nobel prize for relativity, and that the real reason lay in the "German ultranationalist experimental physicists politically and racially motivated opposition to Einstein and his theories of relativity and gravitation".
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Bergson_debate-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Bergson_debate-2.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..6ba448eaf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Bergson_debate-2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+---
+title: "Einstein–Bergson debate"
+chunk: 3/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Bergson_debate"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:42.156437+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Duration and Simultaneity ===
+Later in 1922, Bergson published Duration and Simultaneity, which was explicitly a "confrontation" with Einstein's theory of relativity. It sought to enlist the facts Einstein drew upon in his theories in service of Bergson's vitalist philosophy. He argued that special relativity is rooted in quantifiable clock-time, and that it fails to capture the true essence of time as duration. Distinguishing between "real" time that can be directly experienced and "imaginary" time (i.e. time dilation and relativity of simultaneity) derived form the relativistic formulas, he specifically takes aim at the twin paradox first proposed by Paul Langevin, and calls for the biological aging process to be distinguished from measurable time. In Langevin's example, a traveler makes a round-trip in a rocket for 200 years as measured on Earth, while he himself only experienced 2 years during the flight (see History of the twin paradox). Bergson erroneously rejected this conclusion by claiming that both twins (Peter on Earth and Paul in the rocket) are interchangeable and therefore must be of same age at reunion:
+
+p.74: We must now repeat for Paul everything we said about Peter: Since motion is reciprocal, the two people are interchangeable. If, earlier, looking into Peter’s consciousness, we witnessed a certain flow. We are going to find exactly the same flow in Paul’s consciousness. If we said that the first flow lasted two hundred years, the other flow will also last two hundred years. Peter and Paul, earth and projectile, will have gone through the same duration and aged equally. [Translation by Jacobson].
+The book did not have the success that Bergson had hoped for, and did not dispel the popular consensus that Einstein had won the debate. The failure of Duration and Simultaneity has been understood as representing the end of Bergson's celebrity, though he remains an influential figure in twentieth-century philosophy today.
+Partisans of relativity responded, with Jean Becquerel (son of Henri Becquerel), Miguel Masriera Rubio (professor of physical chemistry in Barcelona), and André Metz published articles and books in support of Einstein and against Bergson, with the 1924 issue of the journal Revue de la philosophie featuring a back-and-forth debate between Bergson and Metz.
+
+=== At the League of Nations ===
+At the time of the debate, Bergson was president of the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation (CIC), an academic advisory committee at the League of Nations, and Einstein was a member of this body. Time was a relevant subject for the CIC, as questions of time standardization were high on the list of priorities. However, Einstein and Bergson could not work together; Einstein resigned in 1922, publishing remarks against the CIC and the League of Nations as a whole, and privately naming Bergson's reception of relativity as a factor in his decision. The next year, he was reinstated due to fears that Germans would be underrepresented without him, and after Bergson's speech reintroducing him to the CIC, the debate was brought up again. Bergson and Einstein clashed several more times until Einstein's disparaging remarks about the whole enterprise of the CIC led to Bergson's resignation in 1925. This marked the end of Bergson's public career.
+
+== Legacy ==
+Prominent continental philosophers have defended Bergson's ideas against Einstein's. In 1952, upon being elected to the chair Bergson had occupied at the Collège de France, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, the founder of French phenomenology, discussed the debate that had taken place thirty years earlier. He proposed that the ascendancy of Einstein's theories had led to a "crisis of reason," and to a prevailing scientism in the face of which "[t]he experience of the perceived world with its obvious facts is no more than a stutter which precedes the clear speech of science." In 1955-1956, Merleau-Ponty delivered a series of lectures on Bergson's challenge to relativity, and in 1959 he delivered the concluding speech at the "Bergson Congress," which also included talks by thinkers such as Gabriel Marcel, Jean Wahl, and Vladimir Jankélévitch. Gilles Deleuze wrote that “Bergson’s confrontation with Einstein was inevitable." According to Deleuze in his seminal Bergsonism, "[Duration and Simultaneity] led to so much misunderstanding because it was thought that Bergson was seeking to refute or correct Einstein, while in fact he wanted, by means of the new feature of duration, to give the theory of Relativity the metaphysics it lacked." Deleuze draws on Bergson's duration for his "Three Syntheses of Time" outlined in Difference and Repetition.
+Alan Sokal, meanwhile, sees the persistence of vanquished Bergsonism after the Einstein debate as the "historical origin" of the "science wars," and characterizes contemporary thinkers still influenced by Bergson as irrationalist and atavistic. Gaston Bachelard believed Einstein's victory was definitive. Karl Popper shared this view.
+On 4-6 April 2019, the University of L'Aquila, in collaboration with the Gran Sasso Science Institute, held an international conference called "What is time? Einstein-Bergson 100 years later."
+
+== Scholarship ==
+Jimena Canales' The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time covers the debate, its significance in the careers of both participants, and its enduring legacy.
+In 2021, Einstein vs. Bergson: An Enduring Quarrel on Time, edited by Alessandro Campo and Simone Gozzano, was published by De Gruyter. It is an anthology compiling papers presented at the L'Aquila conference.
+See also the 2021 papers by Steven Savitt, What Bergson Should Have Said to Einstein and by Peter Kügler, What Bergson should have said about special relativity.
+
+== References ==
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ca6dfa458
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+title: "Food irradiation"
+chunk: 1/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:44.577399+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Food irradiation (sometimes called radurization in American English, and radurisation in British English) is the process of exposing food and food packaging to ionizing radiation, such as from gamma rays, x-rays, or electron beams. Food irradiation improves food safety and extends product shelf life (preservation) by effectively destroying organisms responsible for spoilage and foodborne illness, inhibits sprouting or ripening, and is a means of controlling insects and invasive pests.
+In the United States, consumer perception of foods treated with irradiation is more negative than those processed by other means. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have performed studies that confirm irradiation to be safe. In order for a food to be irradiated in the U.S., the FDA will still require that the specific food be thoroughly tested for irradiation safety.
+Food irradiation is permitted in over 60 countries, and about 500,000 metric tons of food are  processed annually worldwide. The regulations for how food is to be irradiated, as well as the foods allowed to be irradiated, vary greatly from country to country. In Austria, Germany, and many other countries of the European Union only dried herbs, spices, and seasonings can be processed with irradiation and only at a specific dose, while in Brazil all foods are allowed at any dose.
+
+== Uses ==
+Irradiation is used to reduce or eliminate pests and the risk of food-borne illnesses as well as prevent or slow spoilage and plant maturation or sprouting. Depending on the dose, some or all of the organisms, microorganisms, bacteria, and viruses present are destroyed, slowed, or rendered incapable of reproduction. When targeting bacteria, most foods are irradiated to significantly reduce the number of active microbes, not to sterilize all microbes in the product. Irradiation cannot return spoiled or over-ripe food to a fresh state. If this food was processed by irradiation, further spoilage would cease and ripening would slow, yet the irradiation would not destroy the toxins or repair the texture, color, or taste of the food.
+Irradiation slows the speed at which enzymes change the food. By reducing or removing spoilage organisms and slowing ripening and sprouting (e.g. potato, onion, and garlic) irradiation is used to reduce the amount of food that goes bad between harvest and final use. Shelf-stable products are created by irradiating foods in sealed packages, as irradiation reduces chance of spoilage, the packaging prevents re-contamination of the final product. Foods that can tolerate the higher doses of radiation required to do so can be sterilized. This is useful for people at high risk of infection in hospitals as well as situations where proper food storage is not feasible, such as rations for astronauts.
+Pests such as insects have been transported to new habitats through the trade in fresh produce and significantly affected agricultural production and the environment once they established themselves. To reduce this threat and enable trade across quarantine boundaries, food is irradiated using a technique called phytosanitary irradiation. Phytosanitary irradiation sterilizes the pests preventing breeding by treating the produce with low doses of irradiation (less than 1000 Gy). The higher doses required to destroy pests are not used due to either affecting the look or taste, or cannot be tolerated by fresh produce.
+
+== Process ==
+
+The target material is exposed an external source of radiation. The radiation source supplies energetic particles or electromagnetic waves. These particles or waves collide with material in the target.  The higher the likelihood of these collisions over a distance are, the lower the penetration depth of the irradiation process is as the energy is more quickly depleted.
+These collisions break chemical bonds, creating short lived radicals (e.g. the hydroxyl radical, the hydrogen atom and solvated electrons). These radicals cause further chemical changes by bonding with and or stripping particles from nearby molecules. When collisions occur in cells, cell division is often suppressed, halting or slowing the processes that cause the food to mature.
+When the process damages DNA or RNA, effective reproduction becomes unlikely halting the population growth of viruses and organisms. The distribution of the dose of radiation varies from the food surface and the interior as it is absorbed as it moves through food and depends on the energy and density of the food and the type of radiation used.
+
+=== Better quality ===
+Irradiation leaves a product with qualities (sensory and chemical) that are more similar to unprocessed food than any preservation method that can achieve a similar degree of preservation.
+
+=== Not radioactive ===
+Irradiated food does not become radioactive; only particle energies that are incapable of causing significant induced radioactivity are used for food irradiation. In the United States this limit is 4 mega electron volts (MEV) for electron beams and x-ray sources—cobalt-60 or caesium-137 sources are never energetic enough to induce radioactivity.  Particles below this energy can never be energetic enough to modify the nucleus of the targeted atom in the food, regardless of how many particles hit the target material, and so radioactivity can not be induced.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-1.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f55d92967
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+title: "Food irradiation"
+chunk: 2/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:44.577399+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Dosimetry ===
+The radiation absorbed dose is the amount energy absorbed per unit weight of the target material. Dose is used because, when the same substance is given the same dose, similar changes are observed in the target material(Gy or J/kg). Dosimeters are used to measure dose, and are small components that, when exposed to ionizing radiation, change measurable physical attributes to a degree that can be correlated to the dose received. Measuring dose (dosimetry) involves exposing one or more dosimeters along with the target material.
+For purposes of legislation doses are divided into low (up to 1 kGy), medium (1 kGy to 10 kGy), and high-dose applications (above 10 kGy). High-dose applications are above those currently permitted in the US for commercial food items by the FDA and other regulators around the world, though these doses are approved for non commercial applications, such as sterilizing frozen meat for NASA astronauts (doses of 44 kGy) and food for hospital patients.
+The ratio of the maximum dose permitted at the outer edge (Dmax) to the minimum limit to achieve processing conditions (Dmin) determines the uniformity of dose distribution. This ratio determines how uniform the irradiation process is.
+
+== Chemical changes ==
+As ionising radiation passes through food, it creates a trail of chemical transformations due to radiolysis effects. Irradiation does not make foods radioactive, change food chemistry, compromise nutrient contents, or change the taste, texture, or appearance of food.
+
+=== Food quality ===
+Decontamination of food by ionizing radiation is a safe and efficient process for elimination of pathogenic bacteria. Ionizing radiation treatment can be applied to either raw materials or ready to eat foods, with some countries, like the United States, imposing limitations on its use. 
+Assessed rigorously over several decades, irradiation in commercial amounts to treat food has no negative impact on the sensory qualities and nutrient content of foods.
+
+==== Research on minimally processed vegetables ====
+Watercress (Nasturtium officinale) is a rapidly growing aquatic or semi aquatic perennial plant. Because chemical agents do not provide efficient microbial reductions, watercress has been tested with gamma irradiation treatment in order to improve both safety and the shelf life of the product. It is traditionally used on horticultural products to prevent sprouting and post-packaging contamination, delay post-harvest ripening, maturation and senescence.
+
+==== Public perceptions ====
+Some who advocate against food irradiation argue the long-term health effects and safety of irradiated food cannot be scientifically proven, however there have been hundreds of animal feeding studies of irradiated food performed since 1950. Endpoints include subchronic and chronic changes in metabolism, histopathology, function of most organs, reproductive effects, growth, teratogenicity, and mutagenicity.
+
+== Industrial process ==
+Up to the point where the food is processed by irradiation, the food is processed in the same way as all other food.
+
+=== Packaging ===
+For some forms of treatment, packaging is used to ensure the food stuffs never come in contact with radioactive substances and prevent re-contamination of the final product. Food processors and manufacturers today struggle with using affordable, efficient packaging materials for irradiation-based processing. The implementation of irradiation on prepackaged foods has been found to impact foods by inducing specific chemical alterations to the food packaging material that migrates into the food. Cross-linking in various plastics can lead to physical and chemical modifications that can increase the overall molecular weight. On the other hand, chain scission is fragmentation of polymer chains that leads to a molecular mass reduction.
+
+=== Treatment ===
+To treat the food, it is exposed to a radioactive source for a set period of time to achieve a desired dose. Radiation may be emitted by a radioactive substance, or by X-ray and electron beam accelerators. Special precautions are taken to ensure the food stuffs never come in contact with the radioactive substances and that the personnel and the environment are protected from radiation exposure.
+Irradiation treatments are typically classified by dose (high, medium, and low), but are sometimes classified by the effects of the treatment (radappertisation, radicidation and radurisation). Food irradiation is sometimes referred to as "cold pasteurisation" or "electronic pasteurisation" because ionising the food does not heat it to high temperatures during the process, and the effect is similar to pasteurisation. The term "cold pasteurisation" is controversial because the term may be used to disguise the fact that the food has been irradiated, and pasteurisation and irradiation are fundamentally different processes.
+
+==== Gamma irradiation ====
+Gamma irradiation is produced from the radioisotopes cobalt-60 and caesium-137, which are produced by neutron irradiation of cobalt-59 (the only stable isotope of cobalt) and as a nuclear fission product, respectively. Cobalt-60 is the most common source of gamma rays for food irradiation in commercial scale facilities as it is water-insoluble and hence has little risk of environmental contamination by leakage into the water systems. As for transportation of the radiation source, cobalt-60 is transported in special trucks that prevent release of radiation and meet standards mentioned in the Regulations for Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials of the International Atomic Energy Act. The special trucks must meet high safety standards and pass extensive tests to be approved to ship radiation sources. Conversely, caesium-137 is water-soluble and poses a risk of environmental contamination. Insufficient quantities are available for large-scale commercial use as the vast majority of Caesium-137 produced in nuclear reactors is not extracted from spent nuclear fuel. An incident where water-soluble caesium-137 leaked into the source storage pool requiring NRC intervention has led to near elimination of this radioisotope.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-2.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..767748db9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+---
+title: "Food irradiation"
+chunk: 3/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:44.577399+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Gamma irradiation is widely used due to its high penetration depth and dose uniformity, allowing for large-scale applications with high throughput. Additionally, gamma irradiation is significantly less expensive than using an X-ray source. In most designs, the radioisotope, contained in stainless steel pencils, is stored in a water-filled storage pool which absorbs the radiation energy when not in use. For treatment, the source is lifted out of the storage tank, and product contained in totes is passed around the pencils to achieve required processing.
+Treatment costs vary as a function of dose and facility usage. A pallet or tote is typically exposed for several minutes to hours depending on dose. Low-dose applications such as disinfestation of fruit range between US$0.01/lb and US$0.08/lb while higher-dose applications can cost as much as US$0.20/lb.
+
+==== Electron beam ====
+
+Treatment of electron beams is created as a result of high energy electrons in an accelerator that generates electrons accelerated to 99% the speed of light. This system uses electrical energy and can be powered on and off. The high power correlates with a higher throughput and lower unit cost, but electron beams have low dose uniformity and a penetration depth of centimeters. Therefore, electron beam treatment works for products that have low thickness.
+
+==== X-ray ====
+X-rays are produced by bombardment of dense target material with high-energy accelerated electrons (this process is known as bremsstrahlung-conversion), giving rise to a continuous energy spectrum. Heavy metals, such as tantalum and tungsten, are used because of their high atomic numbers and high melting temperatures. Tantalum is usually preferred over tungsten for industrial, large-area, high-power targets because it is more workable than the latter and has a higher threshold energy for induced reactions.  Like electron beams, X-rays do not require the use of radioactive materials and can be turned off when not in use. X-rays have high penetration depths and high dose uniformity but they are a very expensive source of irradiation as only 8% of the incident energy is converted into X-rays.
+
+==== UV-C ====
+UV-C does not penetrate as deeply as other methods. As such, its direct antimicrobial effect is limited to the surface only. Its DNA damage effect produces cyclobutane-type pyrimidine dimers. Besides the direct effects, UV-C also induces resistance even against pathogens not yet inoculated. Some of this induced resistance is understood, being the result of temporary inactivation of self-degradation enzymes like polygalacturonase and increased expression of enzymes associated with cell wall repair.
+
+=== Cost ===
+Irradiation is a capital-intensive technology requiring a substantial initial investment, ranging from $1 million to $5 million. In the case of large research or contract irradiation facilities, major capital costs include a radiation source, hardware (irradiator, totes and conveyors, control systems, and other auxiliary equipment), land (1 to 1.5 acres), radiation shield, and warehouse. Operating costs include salaries (for fixed and variable labor), utilities, maintenance, taxes/insurance, cobalt-60 replenishment, general utilities, and miscellaneous operating costs. Perishable food items, like fruits, vegetables and meats would still require to be handled in the cold chain, so all other supply chain costs remain the same. Food manufacturers have not embraced food irradiation because the market does not support the increased price of irradiated foods, and because of potential consumer backlash due to irradiated foods.
+The cost of food irradiation is influenced by dose requirements, the food's tolerance of radiation, handling conditions, i.e., packaging and stacking requirements, construction costs, financing arrangements, and other variables particular to the situation.
+
+== State of the industry ==
+Irradiation has been approved by many countries. For example, in the U.S. and Canada, food irradiation has existed for decades. Food irradiation is used commercially and volumes are in general increasing at a slow rate, even in the European Union where all member countries allow the irradiation of dried herbs spices and vegetable seasonings, but only a few allow other foods to be sold as irradiated.
+Although there are some consumers who choose not to purchase irradiated food, a sufficient market has existed for retailers to have continuously stocked irradiated products for years. When labelled irradiated food is offered for retail sale, consumers buy and re-purchase it, indicating a market for irradiated foods, although there is a continuing need for consumer education.
+Food scientists have concluded that any fresh or frozen food undergoing irradiation at specified doses is safe to consume, with some 60 countries using irradiation to maintain quality in their food supply.
+
+== Radurisation risks ==
+The following risks can be mentioned:
+
+As with any sterilisation method, a very small proportion of germs may survive the process, and cause a fraction of the irradiated products to spoil anyway. The risk comes from the false sense of security.
+As mentioned above, the treatment only preserves the freshness of the product at the moment it reaches the factory. If it has already lost some of its qualities, this will not be restored, and may even be hidden by the packaging.
+While the purpose of the irradiation is to degrade the DNA/RNA of contaminating germs, a small proportion of the nutrient load is also degraded in the process. In particular, vitamins, whole proteins and aromatic molecules.
+The irradiation creates highly reactive radicals, which would cause problems if the food is consumed immediately after being irradiated.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-3.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..777a9030f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+---
+title: "Food irradiation"
+chunk: 4/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:44.577399+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== Standards and regulations ==
+The Codex Alimentarius represents the global standard for irradiation of food, in particular under the WTO-agreement. Regardless of treatment source, all processing facilities must adhere to safety standards set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Codex Code of Practice for the Radiation Processing of Food, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). More specifically, ISO 14470 and ISO 9001 provide in-depth information regarding safety in irradiation facilities.
+All commercial irradiation facilities contain safety systems which are designed to prevent exposure of personnel to radiation. The radiation source is constantly shielded by water, concrete, or metal. Irradiation facilities are designed with overlapping layers of protection, interlocks, and safeguards to prevent accidental radiation exposure. Meltdowns are unlikely to occur due to low heat production from sources used.
+
+=== Labeling ===
+
+The provisions of the Codex Alimentarius are that any "first generation" product must be labeled "irradiated" as any product derived directly from an irradiated raw material; for ingredients the provision is that even the last molecule of an irradiated ingredient must be listed with the ingredients even in cases where the unirradiated ingredient does not appear on the label. The RADURA-logo is optional; several countries use a graphical version that differs from the Codex-version. The suggested rules for labeling is published at CODEX-STAN – 1 (2005), and includes the usage of the Radura symbol for all products that contain irradiated foods. The Radura symbol is not a designator of quality. The amount of pathogens remaining is based upon dose and the original content and the dose applied can vary on a product by product basis.
+The European Union follows the Codex's provision to label irradiated ingredients down to the last molecule of irradiated food. The European Union does not provide for the use of the Radura logo and relies exclusively on labeling by the appropriate phrases in the respective languages of the Member States. The European Union enforces its irradiation labeling laws by requiring its member countries to perform tests on a cross section of food items in the market-place and to report to the European Commission. The results are published annually on EUR-Lex.
+The US defines irradiated foods as foods in which the irradiation causes a material change in the food, or a material change in the consequences that may result from the use of the food. Therefore, food that is processed as an ingredient by a restaurant or food processor is exempt from the labeling requirement in the US. All irradiated foods must include a prominent Radura symbol followed in addition to the statement "treated with irradiation" or "treated by irradiation. Bulk foods must be individually labeled with the symbol and statement or, alternatively, the Radura and statement should be located next to the sale container.
+
+=== Packaging ===
+Under section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, irradiation of prepackaged foods requires premarket approval for not only the irradiation source for a specific food but also for the food packaging material. Approved packaging materials include various plastic films, yet does not cover a variety of polymers and adhesive based materials that have been found to meet specific standards. The lack of packaging material approval limits manufacturers production and expansion of irradiated prepackaged foods.
+Approved materials by FDA for Irradiation according to 21 CFR 179.45:
+
+=== Food safety ===
+In 2003, the Codex Alimentarius removed any upper dose limit for food irradiation as well as clearances for specific foods, declaring that all are safe to irradiate. Countries such as Pakistan and Brazil have adopted the Codex without any reservation or restriction.
+Standards that describe calibration and operation for radiation dosimetry, as well as procedures to relate the measured dose to the effects achieved and to report and document such results, are maintained by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM international) and are also available as ISO/ASTM standards.
+All of the rules involved in processing food are applied to all foods before they are irradiated.
+
+==== United States ====
+The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the agency responsible for regulation of radiation sources in the United States. Irradiation, as defined by the FDA is a "food additive" as opposed to a food process and therefore falls under the food additive regulations. Each food approved for irradiation has specific guidelines in terms of minimum and maximum dosage as determined safe by the FDA. Packaging materials containing the food processed by irradiation must also undergo approval. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) amends these rules for use with meat, poultry, and fresh fruit.
+The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has approved the use of low-level irradiation as an alternative treatment to pesticides for fruits and vegetables that are considered hosts to a number of insect pests, including fruit flies and seed weevils. Under bilateral agreements that allows less-developed countries to earn income through food exports agreements are made to allow them to irradiate fruits and vegetables at low doses to kill insects, so that the food can avoid quarantine.
+The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have approved irradiation of the following foods and purposes:
+
+Packaged refrigerated or frozen red meat — to control pathogens (E. Coli O157:H7 and Salmonella) and to extend shelf life
+Packaged poultry — control pathogens (Salmonella and Camplylobacter)
+Fresh fruits, vegetables, and grains — to control insects and inhibit growth, ripening and sprouting
+Pork — to control trichinosis
+Herbs, spices and vegetable seasonings — to control insects and microorganisms
+Dry or dehydrated enzyme preparations — to control insects and microorganisms
+White potatoes — to inhibit sprout development
+Wheat and wheat flour — to control insects
+Loose or bagged fresh iceberg lettuce and spinach
+Crustaceans (lobster, shrimp, and crab)
+Shellfish (oysters, clams, mussels, and scallops)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-4.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..5a4e56e26
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+---
+title: "Food irradiation"
+chunk: 5/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:44.577399+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+==== European Union ====
+European law stipulates that all member countries must allow the sale of irradiated dried aromatic herbs, spices and vegetable seasonings. However, these Directives allow Member States to maintain previous clearances food categories the EC's Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) had previously approved (the approval body is now the European Food Safety Authority). Presently, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Netherlands, and Poland allow the sale of many different types of irradiated foods. Before individual items in an approved class can be added to the approved list, studies into the toxicology of each of such food and for each of the proposed dose ranges are requested. It also states that irradiation shall not be used "as a substitute for hygiene or health practices or good manufacturing or agricultural practice". These Directives only control food irradiation for food retail and their conditions and controls are not applicable to the irradiation of food for patients requiring sterile diets. In 2021 the most common food items irradiated were frog legs at 65.1%, poultry 20.6% and dried aromatic herbs, spices and vegetables seasoning.
+Due to the European Single Market, any food, even if irradiated, must be allowed to be marketed in any other member state even if a general ban of food irradiation prevails, under the condition that the food has been irradiated legally in the state of origin.
+Furthermore, imports into the EC are possible from third countries if the irradiation facility had been inspected and approved by the EC and the treatment is legal within the EC or some Member state.
+
+==== Australia ====
+In Australia, following cat deaths after irradiated cat food consumption and producer's voluntary recall, cat food irradiation was banned.
+
+=== Nuclear safety and security ===
+Interlocks and safeguards are mandated to minimize this risk. There have been radiation-related accidents, deaths, and injury at such facilities, many of them caused by operators overriding the safety related interlocks. In a radiation processing facility, radiation specific concerns are supervised by special authorities, while "Ordinary" occupational safety regulations are handled much like other businesses.
+The safety of irradiation facilities is regulated by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency and monitored by the different national Nuclear Regulatory Commissions. The regulators enforce a safety culture that mandates that all incidents that occur are documented and thoroughly analyzed to determine the cause and improvement potential. Such incidents are studied by personnel at multiple facilities, and improvements are mandated to retrofit existing facilities and future design.
+In the US the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the safety of the processing facility, and the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates the safe transport of the radioactive sources.
+
+== Origin of the word "Radurisation" ==
+The word "radurisation" is derived from radura, combining the initial letters of the word "radiation" with the stem of "durus", the Latin word for hard, lasting.
+
+== Historical timeline ==
+1895 Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen discovers X-rays ("bremsstrahlung", from German for radiation produced by deceleration)
+1896 Antoine Henri Becquerel discovers natural radioactivity; Minck proposes the therapeutic use
+1904 Samuel Prescott describes the bactericide effects Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
+1906 Appleby & Banks: UK patent to use radioactive isotopes to irradiate particulate food in a flowing bed
+1918 Gillett: U.S. Patent to use X-rays for the preservation of food
+1921 Schwartz describes the elimination of Trichinella from food
+1930 Wuest: French patent on food irradiation
+1943 MIT becomes active in the field of food preservation for the U.S. Army
+1951 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission begins to co-ordinate national research activities
+1958 World first commercial food irradiation (spices) at Stuttgart, Germany
+1963 FDA approves food irradiation. NASA begins irradiating astronaut food items to prevent food borne illness during space missions.
+1970 Establishment of the International Food Irradiation Project (IFIP), headquarters at the Federal Research Centre for Food Preservation, Karlsruhe, Germany
+1980 FAO/IAEA/WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Irradiation recommends the clearance generally up to 10 kGy "overall average dose"
+1981/1983 End of IFIP after reaching its goals
+1983 Codex Alimentarius General Standard for Irradiated Foods: any food at a maximum "overall average dose" of 10 kGy
+1984 International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI) becomes the successor of IFIP
+1986 January People's Republic of China opens their first food irradiation facility in Shanghai
+1994 India approves irradiation of spices, potato and onion.
+1997 FAO/IAEA/WHO Joint Study Group on High-Dose Irradiation recommends to lift any upper dose limit
+1998 The European Union's Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) voted in favour of eight categories of irradiation applications
+1999 The European Union adopts Directives 1999/2/EC (framework Directive) and 1999/3/EC (implementing Directive) limiting irradiation a positive list whose sole content is one of the eight categories approved by the SCF, but allowing the individual states to give clearances for any food previously approved by the SCF.
+2000 Germany leads a veto on a measure to provide a final draft for the positive list.
+2003 Codex Alimentarius General Standard for Irradiated Foods: no longer any upper dose limit
+2003 The SCF adopts a "revised opinion" that recommends against the cancellation of the upper dose limit.
+2004 ICGFI ends
+2011 The successor to the SCF, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), reexamines the SCF's list and makes further recommendations for inclusion.
+
+== See also ==
+
+Deinococcus radiodurans
+Acute radiation syndrome, effects of exposure to high levels of ionizing radiation
+Food labeling regulations
+Food and cooking hygiene
+Irradiated mail
+Chemical sterilization
+Radappertization
+Radicidation
+Radura
+
+== References ==
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-5.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-5.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..56d3c4c23
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation-5.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+---
+title: "Food irradiation"
+chunk: 6/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:44.577399+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== Further reading ==
+World Health Organization publications:
+Safety and nutritional adequacy of irradiated food, WHO, Geneva, 1994
+High-dose irradiation: Wholesomeness of food irradiated with doses above 10 kGy, WHO, Geneva, 1999, Technical Report Series No. 890
+Facts about Food Irradiation, A series of Fact Sheets from the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI), 1999, IAEA, Vienna, Austria at the Wayback Machine (archived 2006-03-16)
+Diehl, J.F., Safety of irradiated foods, Marcel Dekker, N.Y., 1995 (2. ed.)
+Satin, M., Food irradiation, Technomic, Lancaster, 1996 (2. ed.)
+Urbain, W.M., Food irradiation, Academic Press, Orlando, 1986
+Molins, R. (ed.), Food irradiation – Principles and applications, Wiley Interscience, N.Y., 2001
+Sommers, C.H. and Fan, X. (eds.), Food Irradiation Research and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA, 2006
+The Food That Would Last Forever : Understanding the Dangers of Food Irradiation, by Gary Gibbs, Garden City Park, N.Y. : Avery Pub. Group, c1993
+anon., Food Irradiation: Available Research Indicates That Benefits Outweigh Risks, RCED-00-217, August 24, 2000, Government Accountability Office, United States General Accounting Office, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, Washington, D.C. 20548 "Food Irradiation"
+Farkas, József; Mohácsi-Farkas, Csilla (March 2011). "History and future of food irradiation". Trends in Food Science & Technology. 22 (2–3): 121–126. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2010.04.002.
+WHO Statement on 2-Dodecylcyclobutanone and Related Compounds, 2003 at the Wayback Machine (archived 2013-04-29)
+Evaluation of the Significance of 2-Dodecylcyclobutanone and other Alkylcyclobutanones Archived August 2, 2017, at the Wayback Machine
+
+== External links ==
+
+Codex Alimentarius
+Codex Alimentarius General Standard for Irradiated Foods (CAC/STAN 106-1983, rev.1 2003) at the Wayback Machine (archived 2007-09-26)
+Codex Alimentarius Recommended International Code of Practice Code for Radiation Processing of Foods (CAC/RCP 19-1979, rev.2 – 2003) Archived October 5, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
+General Standard for the Labelling of Prepacked Foods (CODEX STAN 1-1985) Archived April 6, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
+Food Irradiation Processing Alliance FIPA represents the irradiation service industry, manufacturers of food irradiators and suppliers of cobalt-60 sources.
+Irradiation of Food and Food Packaging at the Wayback Machine (archived 2009-03-04), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (US Government)
+Facts about Food Irradiation at the Wayback Machine (archived 2006-03-16), a series of 14 fact sheets, International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1991
+Bibliography on Food Irradiation Archived May 3, 2006, at the Wayback Machine, Federal Research Centre for Nutrition and Food, Karlsruhe, Germany
+IAEA interactive map of irradiation facilities Archived April 20, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
+Keener, Kevin M. "Department of Food Science Food Irradiation: To Zap or not to Zap?" (PDF). North Carolina State University. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 7, 2015. Retrieved January 12, 2021.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..11ad9171e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+---
+title: "Generation"
+chunk: 1/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:45.779516+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+A generation is all of the individuals born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively. It also is "the average period, generally considered to be about 20–30 years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children." In kinship, generation is a structural term, designating the parent–child relationship. In biology, generation also means biogenesis, reproduction, and procreation.
+Generation is also a synonym for birth/age cohort in demographics, marketing, and social science, where it means "people within a delineated population who experience the same significant events within a given period of time." The term generation in this sense, also known as social generations, is widely used in popular culture and is a basis of sociological analysis. Serious analysis of generations began in the nineteenth century, emerging from an increasing awareness of the possibility of permanent social change and the idea of youthful rebellion against the established social order. Some analysts believe that a generation is one of the fundamental social categories in a society; others consider generation less important than class, gender, race, and education.
+
+== Etymology ==
+The word generate comes from the Latin generāre, meaning "to beget". The word generation as a group or cohort in social science signifies the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time, most of whom are approximately the same age and have similar ideas, problems, and attitudes (e.g., Beat Generation and Lost Generation).
+
+== Familial generation ==
+
+A familial generation is a group of living beings constituting a single step in the line of descent from an ancestor. In developed nations the average familial generation length is in the high 20s and has even reached 30 years in some nations. Factors such as greater industrialisation and demand for cheap labour, urbanisation, delayed first pregnancy and a greater uncertainty in both employment income and relationship stability have all contributed to the increase of the generation length from the late 18th century to the present. These changes can be attributed to social factors, such as GDP and state policy, globalization, automation, and related individual-level variables, particularly a woman's educational attainment. Conversely, in less-developed nations, generation length has changed little and remains in the low 20s.
+An intergenerational rift in the nuclear family, between the parents and two or more of their children, is one of several possible dynamics of a dysfunctional family. Coalitions in families are subsystems within families with more rigid boundaries and are thought to be a sign of family dysfunction.
+
+== Social generation ==
+
+Social generations are cohorts of people born in the same date range and who share similar cultural experiences. The idea of a social generation has a long history and can be found in ancient literature, but did not gain currency in the sense that it is used today until the 19th century. Prior to that, the concept "generation" had generally referred to family relationships and not broader social groupings. In 1863, the French lexicographer Emile Littré had defined a generation as "all people coexisting in society at any given time."
+Several trends promoted a new idea of generations, as the 19th century wore on, of a society divided into different categories of people based on age. These trends were all related to the processes of modernisation, industrialisation, or westernisation, which had been changing the face of Europe since the mid-18th century. One was a change in mentality about time and social change. The increasing prevalence of enlightenment ideas encouraged the idea that society and life were changeable, and that civilization could progress. This encouraged the equation of youth with social renewal and change. Political rhetoric in the 19th century often focused on the renewing power of youth influenced by movements such as Young Italy, Young Germany, Sturm und Drang, the German Youth Movement, and other romantic movements. By the end of the 19th century, European intellectuals were disposed toward thinking of the world in generational terms—in terms of youth rebellion and emancipation.
+One important contributing factor to the change in mentality was the change in the economic structure of society. Because of the rapid social and economic change, young men particularly were less beholden to their fathers and family authority than they had been. Greater social and economic mobility allowed them to flout their authority to a much greater extent than had traditionally been possible. Additionally, the skills and wisdom of fathers were often less valuable than they had been due to technological and social change. During this time, the period between childhood and adulthood, usually spent at university or in military service, was also increased for many white-collar workers. This category of people was very influential in spreading the ideas of youthful renewal.
+Another important factor was the breakdown of traditional social and regional identifications. The spread of nationalism and many of the factors that created it (a national press, linguistic homogenisation, public education, suppression of local particularities) encouraged a broader sense of belonging beyond local affiliations. People thought of themselves increasingly as part of a society, and this encouraged identification with groups beyond the local. Auguste Comte was the first philosopher to make a serious attempt to systematically study generations. In Cours de philosophie positive, Comte suggested that social change is determined by generational change and in particular conflict between successive generations. As the members of a given generation age, their "instinct of social conservation" becomes stronger, which inevitably and necessarily brings them into conflict with the "normal attribute of youth"—innovation. Other important theorists of the 19th century were John Stuart Mill and Wilhelm Dilthey.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-1.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..43d15e26b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+title: "Generation"
+chunk: 2/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:45.779516+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Generational theory ===
+The sociologist Karl Mannheim was a seminal figure in the study of generations. He elaborated a theory of generations in his 1923 essay The Problem of Generations. He suggested that there had been a division into two primary schools of study of generations until that time. Firstly, positivists such as Comte measured social change in designated life spans. Mannheim argued that this reduced history to "a chronological table". The other school, the "romantic-historical" was represented by Dilthey and Martin Heidegger. This school focused on the individual qualitative experience at the expense of social context. Mannheim emphasised that the rapidity of social change in youth was crucial to the formation of generations, and that not every generation would come to see itself as distinct. In periods of rapid social change a generation would be much more likely to develop a cohesive character. He also believed that a number of distinct sub-generations could exist. According to Gilleard and Higgs, Mannheim identified three commonalities that a generation shares:
+
+Shared temporal location: generational site or birth cohort
+Shared historical location: generation as actuality or exposure to a common era
+Shared sociocultural location: generational consciousness or entelechy
+Mannheim elaborated on the meaning of a generation's "location" (Lagerung), understood in a historical, economic and sociocultural sense. In 1928 he wrote: The fact that people are born at the same time, or that their youth, adulthood, and old age coincide, does not in itself involve similarity of location; what does create a similar location is that they are in a position to experience the same events and data, etc., and especially that these experiences impinge upon a similarly 'stratified' consciousness. It is not difficult to see why mere chronological contemporaneity cannot of itself produce a common generation location. No one, for example, would assert that there was community of location between the young people of China and Germany about 1800. Only where contemporaries definitely are in a position to participate as an integrated group in certain common experiences can we rightly speak of community of location of a generation.From Mannheim's perspective, then, the chronological boundaries often attributed to different generations ("Generation X", "Millennials" etc.) seem to have little global validity since these boundaries are mostly based on shared Western, especially American, historical and sociocultural 'locations'.
+Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe developed the Strauss–Howe generational theory outlining what they saw as a pattern of generations repeating throughout American history. This theory became quite influential with the public and reignited an interest in the sociology of generations. This led to the creation of an industry of consulting, publishing, and marketing in the field (corporations spent approximately 70 million dollars on generational consulting in the U.S. in 2015). The theory has alternatively been criticized by social scientists and journalists who argue it is non-falsifiable, deterministic, and unsupported by rigorous evidence.
+There are psychological and sociological dimensions in the sense of belonging and identity which may define a generation. The concept of a generation can be used to locate particular birth cohorts in specific historical and cultural circumstances, such as the "Baby boomers". Historian Hans Jaeger shows that, during the concept's long history, two schools of thought coalesced regarding how generations form: the "pulse-rate hypothesis" and the "imprint hypothesis." According to the pulse-rate hypothesis, a society's entire population can be divided into a series of non-overlapping cohorts, each of which develops a unique "peer personality" because of the time period in which each cohort came of age. The movement of these cohorts from one life-stage to the next creates a repeating cycle that shapes the history of that society. A prominent example of pulse-rate generational theory is Strauss and Howe's theory. Social scientists tend to reject the pulse-rate hypothesis because, as Jaeger explains, "the concrete results of the theory of the universal pulse rate of history are, of course, very modest. With a few exceptions, the same goes for the partial pulse-rate theories. Since they generally gather data without any knowledge of statistical principles, the authors are often least likely to notice to what extent the jungle of names and numbers which they present lacks any convincing organization according to generations."
+Social scientists follow the "imprint hypothesis" of generations (i.e., that major historical events—such as the Vietnam War, the September 11 attacks, the COVID-19 pandemic, etc.—leave an "imprint" on the generation experiencing them at a young age), which can be traced to Karl Mannheim's theory. According to the imprint hypothesis, generations are only produced by specific historical events that cause young people to perceive the world differently than their elders. Thus, not everyone may be part of a generation; only those who share a unique social and biographical experience of an important historical moment will become part of a "generation as an actuality." When following the imprint hypothesis, social scientists face a number of challenges. They cannot accept the labels and chronological boundaries of generations that come from the pulse-rate hypothesis (like Generation X or Millennial); instead, the chronological boundaries of generations must be determined inductively and who is part of the generation must be determined through historical, quantitative, and qualitative analysis.
+While all generations have similarities, there are differences among them as well. A 2007 Pew Research Center report called "Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to Change" noted the challenge of studying generations:
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-2.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..88a13d97a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+title: "Generation"
+chunk: 3/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:45.779516+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Generational analysis has a long and distinguished place in social science, and we cast our lot with those scholars who believe it is not only possible, but often highly illuminating, to search for the unique and distinctive characteristics of any given age group of Americans. But we also know this is not an exact science. We are mindful that there are as many differences in attitudes, values, behaviors, and lifestyles within a generation as there are between generations. But we believe this reality does not diminish the value of generational analysis; it merely adds to its richness and complexity.
+Another element of generational theory is recognizing how youth experience their generation, and how that changes based on where they reside in the world. "Analyzing young people's experiences in place contributes to a deeper understanding of the processes of individualization, inequality, and of generation." Being able to take a closer looks at youth cultures and subcultures in different times and places adds an extra element to understanding the everyday lives of youth. This allows a better understanding of youth and the role generation and place play in their development. It is not where the birth cohort boundaries are drawn that is important, but how individuals and societies interpret the boundaries and how divisions may shape processes and outcomes. However, the practice of categorizing age cohorts is useful to researchers for the purpose of constructing boundaries in their work.
+
+=== Generational tension ===
+Norman Ryder writing in American Sociological Review in 1965 shed light on the sociology of the discord between generations by suggesting that society "persists despite the mortality of its individual members, through processes of demographic metabolism and particularly the annual infusion of birth cohorts". He argued that generations may sometimes be a "threat to stability" but at the same time they represent "the opportunity for social transformation". Ryder attempted to understand the dynamics at play between generations.
+Amanda Grenier in a 2007 essay published in Journal of Social Issues offered another source of explanation for why generational tensions exist. Grenier asserted that generations develop their own linguistic models that contribute to misunderstanding between age cohorts, "Different ways of speaking exercised by older and younger people exist, and may be partially explained by social historical reference points, culturally determined experiences, and individual interpretations".
+Karl Mannheim in his 1952 book Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge asserted the belief that people are shaped through lived experiences as a result of social change. Howe and Strauss also have written on the similarities of people within a generation being attributed to social change. Based on the way these lived experiences shape a generation in regard to values, the result is that the new generation will challenge the older generation's values, resulting in tension. This challenge between generations and the tension that arises is a defining point for understanding generations and what separates them.
+The intergenerational policy can be described at either intergenerational altruism, intergenerational equity or intergenerational selfishness. One element of intergenerational struggle is government debt, which results in older generations inheriting debt to younger generations. 
+
+== List of social generations ==
+
+=== Western world ===
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-3.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..34ccfe21f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+title: "Generation"
+chunk: 4/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:45.779516+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Lost Generation, also known as the "Generation of 1914" in Europe, is a term originating from Gertrude Stein to describe those who fought in World War I. The Lost Generation is defined as the cohort born from 1883 to 1900 who came of age during World War I and the Roaring Twenties.
+The Greatest Generation, also known in American usage as the "G.I. Generation", includes the veterans who fought in World War II. They were born from 1901 to 1927; older G.I.s (or the Interbellum Generation) came of age during the Roaring Twenties, while younger G.I.s came of age during the Great Depression and World War II. Journalist Tom Brokaw wrote about American members of this cohort in his book The Greatest Generation, which popularized the term.
+The Silent Generation, also known as the "Lucky Few", is the cohort who came of age in the post–World War II era. They were born from 1928 to 1945. In the U.S., this group includes most of those who may have fought in the Korean War and many of those who may have fought during the Vietnam War.
+Baby boomers (often shortened to Boomers) are the people born following World War II from 1946 to 1964. Increased birth rates were observed during the post–World War II baby boom, making them a relatively large demographic cohort. In the U.S., many older boomers may have fought in the Vietnam War or participated in the counterculture of the 1960s, while younger boomers (or Generation Jones) came of age in the "malaise" years of the 1970s.
+Generation X (or Gen X for short) is the cohort following the baby boomers. The generation is generally defined as people born between 1965 and 1980. In the U.S., Xers were sometimes called the "baby bust" generation because of a drop in birth rates following the baby boom. They were also referred to as the MTV Generation, due to the channel's popularity among this cohort.
+Millennials, also known as Generation Y (or Gen Y for short), are the generation following Generation X, who grew up around the turn of the 3rd millennium. The generation is typically defined as people born from 1981 to 1996. In 2019, millennials outnumbered baby boomers in the United States, amounting to an estimated 71.6 million boomers and 72.1 million millennials.
+Generation Z (or Gen Z for short and colloquially as "Zoomers") are the people succeeding the Millennials. This cohort is generally defined as those born from 1997 to 2012. Generation Z is named after the last letter of the standard Latin alphabet, following Generation X and Generation Y (also known as the millennials).
+Generation Alpha (or Gen Alpha for short) is the generation succeeding Generation Z. Researchers and popular media loosely identify the early 2010s as the starting birth years and the 2020s as the ending birth years, with there not being a true consensus on the exact birth range yet. Generation Alpha is the first to be born entirely in the 21st century. Generation Alpha is named after the first letter of the Greek alphabet.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-4.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..d458b88df
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+---
+title: "Generation"
+chunk: 5/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:45.779516+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Other areas ===
+In Armenia, people born after the country's independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 are known as the "Independence generation". In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the generation of people born in Czechoslovakia during the baby boom which started in the early 1970s, during the period of "normalization" are called "Husák's children". The generation was named after the President and long-term Communist leader of Czechoslovakia, Gustáv Husák. This was due to his political program to boost the growth of population. In the People's Republic of China, the "Post-80s" (Chinese: 八零后世代 or 八零后) (born-after-1980 generation) are those who were born in the 1980s in urban areas of mainland China. Growing up in modern China, the Post-80s has been characterised by its optimism for the future, newfound excitement for consumerism and entrepreneurship and acceptance of its historic role in transforming modern China into an economic power. There is also the similarly named "Post-90s" (Chinese: 九零后), those born after 1990. A broader generational classification would be the "one-child generation" born between the introduction of the one-child policy in 1979 and its softening into a "two-child policy" in 2015. The lack of siblings has had profound psychological effects on this generation, such as egoism due to always being at the centre of parents' attention as well as the stress of having to be the sole provider once the parents retire. People born post-1980s in Hong Kong are for the most part different from the same generation in mainland China. The term "Post-80s" (zh: 八十後) came into use in Hong Kong between 2009 and 2010, particularly during the opposition to the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, during which a group of young activists came to the forefront of Hong Kong's political scene. They are said to be "post-materialist" in outlook, and they are particularly vocal in issues such as urban development, culture and heritage, and political reform. Their campaigns include the fight for the preservation of Lee Tung Street, the Star Ferry Pier and the Queen's Pier, Choi Yuen Tsuen Village, real political reform (on 23 June), and a citizen-oriented Kowloon West Art district. Their discourse mainly develops around themes such as anti-colonialism, sustainable development, and democracy. In Hungary, the re-criminalization of abortion and the childless-tax policies implemented by Anna Ratkó in the early-1950s resulted in a minor baby boom (roughly 1953–1956) known as the "Ratkó era" (hu:Ratkó-korszak) or the "Ratkó children."
+In India, generations tend to follow a pattern similar to the broad Western model, although there are still major differences, especially in the older generations. One interpretation sees India's independence in 1947 as India's major generational shift. People born in the 1930s and 1940s tended to be loyal to the new state and tended to adhere to "traditional" divisions of society. Indian "boomers", those born after independence and into the early 1960s, witnessed events like the Indian Emergency between 1975 and 1977 which made a number of them somewhat skeptical of the government. In Israel, where most Ashkenazi Jews born before the end of World War II were Holocaust survivors, children of survivors and people who survived as babies are sometimes referred to as the "second generation (of Holocaust survivors)" (Hebrew: דור שני לניצולי שואה, dor sheni lenitsolei shoah; or more often just דור שני לשואה, dor sheni lashoah, literally "second generation to the Holocaust"). This term is particularly common in the context of psychological, social, and political implications of the individual and national transgenerational trauma caused by the Holocaust. Some researchers have also found signs of trauma in third-generation Holocaust survivors. In Northern Ireland, people born after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, generally regarded as the end of the Troubles, are colloquially known as "Peace Babies". In Norway, the term "the dessert generation" has been applied to the baby boomers and every generation afterwards. In Poland term generation of Columbuses means Poles who were born soon after Poland regained its independence in 1918, and whose adolescence was marked by World War II. In Romania, the term decreței (from the Romanian language word decret, meaning "decree"; diminutive decrețel) is used to refer to those Romanians born during the period immediately following Decree 770 signed in 1967, which restricted abortion and contraception, and was intended to create a new and large Romanian population. In Russia, characteristics of Russian generations are determined by fateful historical events that significantly change either the foundations of the life of the country as a whole or the rules of life in a certain period of time. Names and given descriptions of Russian generations: the Generation of Winners, the generation of the Cold War, the generation of Perestroika, the first non-Soviet generation (the children of Perestroika, the Witnesses of Perestroika), the digital generation. In Singapore, people born before 1949 are referred to as the "Pioneer Generation" for their contributions to Singapore during the nation's earliest years. Likewise, those born between 1950 and 1959 are referred to as the "Merdeka Generation" as their formative years were during the political turbulence of the 1950s to 1960s in Singapore. In South Africa, people born after the 1994 general election, the first after apartheid was ended, are often referred to in media as the "born-free generation". People born after the year 2000 are often referred to as "Ama2000", a term popularized by music and a Coca-Cola advert. In South Korea, generational cohorts are often defined around the democratization of the country, with various schemes suggested including names such as the "democratization generation", 386 generation (named after Intel 386 computer in the 1990s to describe people in their late 30s and early 40s who were born in the 1960s, and attended university/college in the 1980s, also called the "June 3, 1987 generation"), that witnessed the June uprising, the "April 19 generation" (that struggled against the Syngman Rhee regime in 1960), the "June 3 generation" (that struggled against the normalization treaty with Japan in 1964), the "1969 generation" (that struggled against the constitutional revision allowing three presidential terms), and the shin-se-dae ("new") generation. The term Shin-se-dae generation refers to the generation following Millennials in the Korean language. The Shin-se-dae generation are mostly free from ideological or political bias. In Spain, although in general terms there is a certain assimilation to the generational structure of Strauss and Howe (and uncritically the majority of the media use it), there are substantial differentials, for historical reasons that (as established by the Generations theory) have marked the successive age cohorts in the 20th Century. Firstly, neutrality during the First World War, which prevented it from suffering that social and cultural impact. Secondly, the Civil War and the subsequent dictatorship, which lasted four decades and, especially during its first decades, imposed strong political, social and cultural repression. And thirdly, neutrality during World War II. Thus, the sociologists Artemio Baigorri and Manuela Caballero insert, between the Silent Generation and the Baby Boom Generation (which they also call the Protest Generation), what they call the Franco Generation (1929–1943), whose childhood and early youth was marked by war, post-war scarcity and repression.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-5.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-5.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..caa97e412
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-5.md
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+---
+title: "Generation"
+chunk: 6/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:45.779516+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+In Taiwan, the term Strawberry generation refers to Taiwanese people born after 1981 who "bruise easily" like strawberries—meaning they can not withstand social pressure or work hard like their parents' generation; the term refers to people who are insubordinate, spoiled, selfish, arrogant, and sluggish in work. In the Philippines, the Filipinos who are in Millennials is also known as Batang 90's. In Ukraine, the political scientists Olga Onuch and Henry E. Hale identified people born from about 1975 to 1985 as the "Independence Generation" in their book The Zelensky Effect. This generation were children when Ukraine gained independence in 1991—old enough to recall and understand, but too young to participate—and "came of age politically in an independent Ukraine". Onuch and Hale argue that this generation has played a vital role in the formation of civic national identity in Ukraine.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-6.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-6.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..420ed2fe1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation-6.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+---
+title: "Generation"
+chunk: 7/7
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:45.779516+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Other terminology ===
+
+The term generation is sometimes applied to a cultural movement, or more narrowly defined group than an entire demographic (such as cuspers between generations). Some examples include:
+
+The Stolen Generations, refers to children of Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islander descent, who were forcibly removed from their families by Australian federal and state government agencies and church missions, under Acts of their respective parliaments between approximately 1869 and 1969.
+The Beat Generation, refers to a popular American cultural movement widely cited by social scholars as having laid the foundation of the pro-active American counterculture of the 1960s. It consisted of Americans born between the two world wars who came of age in the rise of the automobile era, and the surrounding accessibility they brought to the culturally diverse, yet geographically broad and separated nation.
+Generation Jones is a term coined by Jonathan Pontell to describe the cohort of people born between 1954 and 1965. The term is used primarily in English-speaking countries. Pontell defined Generation Jones as referring to the second half of the post–World War II baby boom. The term also includes first-wave Generation X.
+MTV Generation, a term referring to the adolescents and young adults of the 1980s and early-mid 1990s who were heavily influenced by the television channel MTV. It is often used synonymously with Generation X.
+In Europe, a variety of terms have emerged in different countries particularly after the 2008 financial crisis to designate young people with limited employment and career prospects.
+The Generation of 500 is a term popularized by the Greek mass media and refers to educated Greek twixters of urban centers who generally fail to establish a career. Young adults are usually forced into underemployment in temporary and occasional jobs, unrelated to their educational background, and receive the minimum allowable base salary of €500. This generation evolved in circumstances leading to the Greek debt crisis and participated in the 2010–2011 Greek protests.
+In Spain, they are referred to as the mileuristas (for €1,000, "the thousand-euro-ists").
+In Portugal, they are called the Geração à Rasca (the "Scraping-By Generation"); a twist on the older term Geração Rasca ("the Lousy Generation") used by detractors to refer to student demonstrations in the 1990s against Education Ministers António Couto dos Santos and later Manuela Ferreira Leite.
+In France, they are called Génération précaire ("The Precarious Generation").
+In Italy the term "generation of 1,000 euros" is used.
+Xennials, Oregon Trail Generation, and Generation Catalano are terms used to describe individuals born during Generation X/Millennial cusp years. Xennials is a portmanteau blending the words Generation X and Millennials to describe a microgeneration of people born from the late 1970s to the early 1980s.
+Zillennials, Zennials, Snapchat Generation, and MinionZ are terms used to describe individuals born during the Millennial/Generation Z cusp years. Zillennials is a portmanteau blending the words Millennials and Generation Z to describe a microgeneration of people born from the mid- to late-1990s.
+In the Netherlands the term Pechgeneratie ("Bad luck generation") describes students who started their higher education between the years of 2015 and 2022. In those years, the Dutch government had replaced the basic grant (basisbeurs) system with a loan system in which students had to take on debt to pay for their studies.
+
+== Criticism ==
+Philip N. Cohen, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland, criticized the use of "generation labels", stating that the labels are "imposed by survey researchers, journalists or marketing firms" and "drive people toward stereotyping and rash character judgment." Cohen's open letter to the Pew Research Center, which outlines his criticism of generational labels, received at least 150 signatures from other demographers and social scientists.
+Louis Menand, writer at The New Yorker, stated that "there is no empirical basis" for the contention "that differences within a generation are smaller than differences between generations." He argued that generational theories "seem to require" that people born at the tail end of one generation and people born at the beginning of another (e.g. a person born in 1965, the first year of Generation X, and a person born in 1964, the last of the Boomer era) "must have different values, tastes, and life experiences" or that people born in the first and last birth years of a generation (e.g. a person born in 1980, the last year of Generation X, and a person born in 1965, the first year of Generation X) "have more in common" than with people born a couple years before or after them.
+In 2023, after a review of their research and methods, and consulting with external experts, Pew Research Center announced a change in their use of generation labels to "avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes or oversimplifying people's complex lived experiences", and said that, going forward, they will only conduct generational analysis when historical data is available that allows them to "compare generations at similar stage of life" and "won't always default to using the standard generational definitions and labels."
+
+== See also ==
+
+== References ==
+
+== Further reading ==
+Fry, Richard (16 January 2015). "This Year, Millennials Will Overtake Baby Boomers". Pew Center.
+Ialenti, Vincent (6 April 2016). "Generation". Society for Cultural Anthropology. Archived from the original on 13 December 2018. Retrieved 5 February 2018.
+Ulrike Jureit: "Generation, Generationality, Generational Research", version: 2, in: Docupedia Zeitgeschichte, 09. August 2017
+
+== External links ==
+ The dictionary definition of generation at Wiktionary
+ Quotations related to Generation at Wikiquote
+ Media related to Generations at Wikimedia Commons
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..4884f3007
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 1/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, and scientists have been involved in controversies around foods and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified food (GM food or GMO food) are whether such food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the objectivity of scientific research and publication, the effect of genetically modified crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of such crops for farmers, and the role of the crops in feeding the world population. In addition, products derived from GMO organisms play a role in the production of ethanol fuels and pharmaceuticals.
+Specific concerns include mixing of genetically modified and non-genetically modified products in the food supply, effects of GMOs on the environment, the rigor of the regulatory process, and consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs. Advocacy groups such as the Center for Food Safety, Organic Consumers Association, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace say risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities.
+The safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies starts with an evaluation of whether or not the food is substantially equivalent to non-genetically engineered counterparts that are already deemed fit for human consumption. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food.
+There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.
+
+== Public perception ==
+Consumer concerns about food quality first became prominent long before the advent of GM foods in the 1990s. Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle led to the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, the first major US legislation on the subject. This began an enduring concern over the purity and later "naturalness" of food that evolved from a single focus on sanitation to include others on added ingredients such as preservatives, flavors and sweeteners, residues such as pesticides, the rise of organic food as a category and, finally, concerns over GM food. Some consumers, including many in the US, came to see GM food as "unnatural", with various negative associations and fears (a reverse halo effect).
+Specific perceptions include a view of genetic engineering as meddling with naturally evolved biological processes, and one that science has limitations on its comprehension of potential negative ramifications. An opposing perception is that genetic engineering is itself an evolution of traditional selective breeding, and that the weight of current evidence suggests current GM foods are identical to conventional foods in nutritional value and effects on health.
+Surveys indicate widespread concern among consumers that eating genetically modified food is harmful, that biotechnology is risky, that more information is needed and that consumers need control over whether to take such risks. A diffuse sense that social and technological change is accelerating, and that people cannot affect this context of change, becomes focused when such changes affect food. Leaders in driving public perception of the harms of such food in the media include Jeffrey M. Smith, Dr. Oz, Oprah, and Bill Maher; organizations include Organic Consumers Association, Greenpeace (especially with regard to golden rice) and Union of Concerned Scientists.
+In the United States support or opposition or skepticism about GMO food is not divided by traditional partisan (liberal/conservative) lines, but young adults are more likely to have negative opinions on genetically modified food than older adults.
+Religious groups have raised concerns over whether genetically modified food will remain kosher or halal. In 2001, no such foods had been designated as unacceptable by Orthodox rabbis or Muslim leaders.
+Food writer Michael Pollan does not oppose eating genetically modified foods, but supports mandatory labeling of GM foods and has criticized the intensive farming enabled by certain GM crops, such as glyphosate-tolerant ("Roundup-ready") corn and soybeans. He has also expressed concerns about biotechnology companies holding the intellectual property of the foods people depend on, and about the effects of the growing corporatization of large-scale agriculture. To address these problems, Pollan has brought up the idea of open sourcing GM foods. The idea has since been adopted to varying degrees by companies like Syngenta, and is being promoted by organizations such as the New America Foundation. Some organizations, like The BioBricks Foundation, have already worked out open-source licenses that could prove useful in this endeavour.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-1.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..eff4aa4d1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 2/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Reviews and polls ===
+An EMBO Reports article in 2003 reported that the Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe project (PABE) found the public neither accepting nor rejecting GMOs. Instead, PABE found that public had "key questions" about GMOs: "Why do we need GMOs? Who benefits from their use? Who decided that they should be developed and how? Why were we not better informed about their use in our food, before their arrival on the market? Why are we not given an effective choice about whether or not to buy these products? Have potential long-term and irreversible consequences been seriously evaluated, and by whom? Do regulatory authorities have sufficient powers to effectively regulate large companies? Who wishes to develop these products? Can controls imposed by regulatory authorities be applied effectively? Who will be accountable in cases of unforeseen harm?" PABE also found that the public's scientific knowledge does not control public opinion, since scientific facts do not answer these questions. PABE also found that the public does not demand "zero risk" in GM food discussions and is "perfectly aware that their lives are full of risks that need to be counterbalanced against each other and against the potential benefits. Rather than zero risk, what they demanded was a more realistic assessment of risks by regulatory authorities and GMO producers."
+In 2006, the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology made public a review of U.S. survey results between 2001 and 2006. The review showed that Americans' knowledge of GM foods and animals was low throughout the period. Protests during this period against Calgene's Flavr Savr GM tomato mistakenly described it as containing fish genes, confusing it with DNA Plant Technology's fish tomato experimental transgenic organism, which was never commercialized.
+A survey in 2007 by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand found that in Australia, where labeling is mandatory, 27% of Australians checked product labels to see whether GM ingredients were present when initially purchasing a food item.
+A review article about European consumer polls as of 2009 concluded that opposition to GMOs in Europe has been gradually decreasing, and that about 80% of respondents did not "actively avoid GM products when shopping". The 2010 "Eurobarometer" survey, which assesses public attitudes about biotech and the life sciences, found that cisgenics, GM crops made from plants that are crossable by conventional breeding, evokes a smaller reaction than transgenic methods, using genes from species that are taxonomically very different. Eurobrometer survey in 2019 reported that most Europeans do not care about GMO when the topic is not presented explicitly, and when presented only 27% choose it as a concern. In just nine years since identical survey in 2010 the level of concern has halved in 28 EU Member States. Concern about specific topics decreased even more, for example genome editing on its own only concerns 4%.
+A Deloitte survey in 2010 found that 34% of U.S. consumers were very or extremely concerned about GM food, a 3% reduction from 2008. The same survey found gender differences: 10% of men were extremely concerned, compared with 16% of women, and 16% of women were unconcerned, compared with 27% of men.
+A poll by The New York Times in 2013 showed that 93% of Americans wanted labeling of GM food.
+The 2013 vote, rejecting Washington State's GM food labeling I-522 referendum came shortly after the 2013 World Food Prize was awarded to employees of Monsanto and Syngenta. The award has drawn criticism from opponents of genetically modified crops.
+With respect to the question of "Whether GMO foods were safe to eat", the gap between the opinion of the public and that of American Association for the Advancement of Science scientists is very wide with 88% of AAAS scientists saying yes in contrast to 37% of the general public.
+
+=== Public relations campaigns and protests ===
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-10.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-10.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..4a7fdcaba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-10.md
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 11/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+In 2007, 2009, and 2011, Gilles-Éric Séralini published re-analysis studies that used data from Monsanto rat-feeding experiments for three modified maize varieties (insect-resistant MON 863 and MON 810 and glyphosate-resistant NK603). He concluded that the data showed liver, kidney and heart damage. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) then concluded that the differences were all within the normal range. EFSA also stated that Séralini's statistics were faulty. EFSA's conclusions were supported by FSANZ, a panel of expert toxicologists, and the French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB).
+In 2012, Séralini's lab published a paper that considered the long-term effects of feeding rats various levels of GM glyphosate-resistant maize, conventional glyphosate-treated maize, and a mixture of the two strains. The paper concluded that rats fed the modified maize had severe health problems, including liver and kidney damage and large tumors. The study provoked widespread criticism. Séralini held a press conference just before the paper was released in which he announced the release of a book and a movie. He allowed reporters to have access to the paper before his press conference only if they signed a confidentiality agreement under which they could not report other scientists' responses to the paper. The press conference resulted in media coverage emphasizing a connection between GMOs, glyphosate, and cancer. Séralini's publicity stunt yielded criticism from other scientists for prohibiting critical commentary. Criticisms included insufficient statistical power and that Séralini's Sprague-Dawley rats were inappropriate for a lifetime study (as opposed to a shorter toxicity study) because of their tendency to develop cancer (one study found that more than 80% normally got cancer). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines recommended using 65 rats per experiment instead of the 10 in Séralini's. Other criticisms included the lack of data regarding food amounts and specimen growth rates, the lack of a dose–response relationship (females fed three times the standard dose showed a decreased number of tumours) and no identified mechanism for the tumour increases. Six French national academies of science issued an unprecedented joint statement condemning the study and the journal that published it. Food and Chemical Toxicology published many critical letters, with only a few expressing support. National food safety and regulatory agencies also reviewed the paper and dismissed it. In March 2013, Séralini responded to these criticisms in the same journal that originally published his study, and a few scientists supported his work. In November 2013, the editors of Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper.  The retraction was met with protests from Séralini and his supporters. In 2014, the study was republished by a different journal, Environmental Sciences Europe, in an expanded form, including the raw data that Séralini had originally refused to reveal.
+
+==== Carman et al. (2013) ====
+Australian researcher Judy Carman, known for her long-standing critical stance toward GMOs, co-authored a study in which she reported adverse health effects associated with the consumption of genetically modified feed, highlighting signs of intestinal irritation in pigs as well as increased uterine thickness. The study was criticized by FSANZ, which pointed out serious flaws in its design, execution, and interpretation of the results. The agency emphasized that, although the authors attributed gastrointestinal and reproductive effects to the GM diet, relevant mycotoxins commonly found in grain-based feeds, such as trichothecenes and zearalenone, were not analyzed, even though these could explain intestinal inflammation and estrogenic effects independently of transgenesis. FSANZ also highlighted the lack of detailed information on the composition of the control and GM diets, which prevents the exclusion of the influence of other nutritional factors unrelated to the transgenic trait.
+FSANZ noted that only a single GM diet was used, making it impossible to assess a dose–response relationship, and that there was no control of feed particle size, despite the authors themselves acknowledging the sensitivity of the porcine gastric mucosa to this factor. Group sizes and the method used to measure feed intake introduced substantial uncertainty, and mortality rates were considered abnormally high by industry standards, suggesting the presence of uncontrolled stressors. The agency also identified major deficiencies in the anatomical and pathological assessments: the intestines were not weighed, the intestinal mucosa and intestinal contents were not examined, and no histopathological analysis was performed to confirm inflammation, as the mere presence of hyperaemia is insufficient to characterize it. FSANZ further highlighted the absence of the expected changes in stomach weight relative to body weight, which contradicts the hypothesis of chronic inflammation. Marked differences in the gross appearance of stomachs from animals fed the same GM diet raised the possibility of acute stress effects, potentially associated with fasting and the slaughter process, without the study providing information to rule out this source of bias. In addition, FSANZ considered it problematic that regional lymph nodes, production performance parameters, and haematological tests were not evaluated, even though these could have provided objective evidence of inflammation or chronic blood loss. Finally, the agency explicitly disagreed with the authors' claim that standard haematological and serological tests are poor measures of inflammation, emphasizing that white blood cell counts and differentials, as well as biochemical parameters, are sensitive and widely used tools for this purpose.
+The study was also criticized for having been published in the Journal of Organic Systems, which does not have an established scientific reputation and whose own editorial policy declares alignment with the principles of organic agriculture, thereby introducing an explicit editorial bias.
+
+=== Nutritional quality ===
+Some plants are specifically genetically modified to be healthier than conventional crops. Golden rice was created to combat vitamin A deficiency by synthesizing beta carotene (which conventional rice does not).
+
+=== Detoxification ===
+One variety of cottonseed has been genetically modified to remove the toxin gossypol, so that it would be safe for humans to eat.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-11.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-11.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..76f16bfd9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-11.md
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 12/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== Environment ==
+Genetically modified crops are planted in fields much like regular crops. There they interact directly with organisms that feed on the crops and indirectly with other organisms in the food chain. The pollen from the plants is distributed in the environment like that of any other crop. This distribution has led to concerns over the effects of GM crops on the environment. Potential effects include gene flow/genetic pollution, pesticide resistance and greenhouse gas emissions.
+
+=== Non-target organisms ===
+A major use of GM crops is in insect control through the expression of the cry (crystal delta-endotoxins) and Vip (vegetative insecticidal proteins) genes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Such toxins could affect other insects in addition to targeted pests such as the European corn borer. Bt proteins have been used as organic sprays for insect control in France since 1938 and the US since 1958, with no reported ill effects. Cry proteins selectively target Lepidopterans (moths and butterflies). As a toxic mechanism, cry proteins bind to specific receptors on the membranes of mid-gut (epithelial) cells, resulting in their rupture. Any organism that lacks the appropriate receptors in its gut is unaffected by the cry protein, and therefore is not affected by Bt. Regulatory agencies assess the potential for transgenic plants to affect non-target organisms before approving their commercial release.
+In 1999, a paper stated that, in a laboratory environment, pollen from Bt maize dusted onto milkweed could harm the monarch butterfly. A collaborative research exercise over the following two years by several groups of scientists in the US and Canada studied the effects of Bt pollen in both the field and the laboratory. The study resulted in a risk assessment concluding that any risk posed to butterfly populations was negligible. A 2002 review of the scientific literature concluded that "the commercial large-scale cultivation of current Bt–maize hybrids did not pose a significant risk to the monarch population" and noted that despite large-scale planting of genetically modified crops, the butterfly's population was increasing. However, the herbicide glyphosate used to grow GMOs kills milkweed, the only food source of monarch butterflies, and by 2015 about 90% of the U.S. population has declined.
+Lövei et al. analyzed laboratory settings and found that Bt toxins could affect non-target organisms, generally closely related to the intended targets. Typically, exposure occurs through the consumption of plant parts, such as pollen or plant debris, or through Bt ingestion by predators. A group of academic scientists criticized the analysis, writing: "We are deeply concerned about the inappropriate methods used in their paper, the lack of ecological context, and the authors' advocacy of how laboratory studies on non-target arthropods should be conducted and interpreted".
+
+=== Biodiversity ===
+Crop genetic diversity might decrease due to the development of superior GM strains that crowd others out of the market. Indirect effects might affect other organisms. To the extent that agrochemicals impact biodiversity, modifications that increase their use, either because successful strains require them or because the accompanying development of resistance will require increased amounts of chemicals to offset increased resistance in target organisms.
+Studies comparing the genetic diversity of cotton found that in the US diversity has either increased or stayed the same, while in India it has declined. This difference was attributed to the larger number of modified varieties in the US compared to India. A review of the effects of Bt crops on soil ecosystems found that in general they "appear to have no consistent, significant, and long-term effects on the microbiota and their activities in soil".
+The diversity and number of weed populations has been shown to decrease in farm-scale trials in the United Kingdom and in Denmark when comparing herbicide-resistant crops to their conventional counterparts. The UK trial suggested that the diversity of birds could be adversely affected by the decrease in weed seeds available for foraging. Published farm data involved in the trials showed that seed-eating birds were more abundant on conventional maize after the application of the herbicide, but that there were no significant differences in any other crop or prior to herbicide treatment. A 2012 study found a correlation between the reduction of milkweed in farms that grew glyphosate-resistant crops and the decline in adult monarch butterfly populations in Mexico. The New York Times reported that the study "raises the somewhat radical notion that perhaps weeds on farms should be protected.
+A 2005 study, designed to "simulate the impact of a direct overspray on a wetland" with four different agrochemicals (carbaryl (Sevin), malathion, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and glyphosate in a Roundup formulation) by creating artificial ecosystems in tanks and then applying "each chemical at the manufacturer's maximum recommended application rates" found that "species richness was reduced by 15% with Sevin, 30% with malathion, and 22% with Roundup, whereas 2,4-D had no effect". The study has been used by environmental groups to argue that use of agrochemicals causes unintended harm to the environment and to biodiversity.
+
+=== Secondary pests ===
+Several studies documented surges in secondary pests within a few years of adoption of Bt cotton. In China, the main problem has been with mirids, which have in some cases "completely eroded all benefits from Bt cotton cultivation". A 2009 study in China concluded that the increase in secondary pests depended on local temperature and rainfall conditions and occurred in half the villages studied. The increase in insecticide use for the control of these secondary insects was far smaller than the reduction in total insecticide use due to Bt cotton adoption. A 2011 study based on a survey of 1,000 randomly selected farm households in five provinces in China found that the reduction in pesticide use in Bt cotton cultivars was significantly lower than that reported in research elsewhere: The finding was consistent with a hypothesis that more pesticide sprayings are needed over time to control emerging secondary pests, such as aphids, spider mites, and lygus bugs. Similar problems have been reported in India, with mealy bugs and aphids.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-12.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-12.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..baf2bedf3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-12.md
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 13/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Gene flow ===
+Genes from a GMO may pass to another organism just like an endogenous gene. The process is known as outcrossing and can occur in any new open-pollinated crop variety. As late as the 1990s this 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. Introduced traits potentially can cross into neighboring plants of the same or closely related species through three different types of gene flow: crop-to-crop, crop-to-weedy, and crop-to-wild. In crop-to-crop, genetic information from a genetically modified crop is transferred to a non-genetically modified crop. Crop-to-weedy transfer refers to the transfer of genetically modified material to a weed, and crop-to-wild indicates transfer from a genetically modified crop to a wild, undomesticated plant and/or crop. There are concerns that the spread of genes from modified organisms to unmodified relatives could produce species of weeds resistant to herbicides that could contaminate nearby non-genetically modified crops, or could disrupt the ecosystem, This is primarily a concern if the transgenic organism has a significant survival capacity and can increase in frequency and persist in natural populations. This process, whereby genes are transferred from GMOs to wild relatives, is different from the development of so-called "superweeds" or "superbugs" that develop resistance to pesticides under natural selection.
+In most countries environmental studies are required before approval of a GMO for commercial purposes, and a monitoring plan must be presented to identify unanticipated gene flow effects.
+In 2004, Chilcutt and Tabashnik found Bt protein in kernels of a refuge crop (a conventional crop planted to harbor pests that might otherwise become resistant a pesticide associated with the GMO) implying that gene flow had occurred.
+In 2005, scientists at the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology reported the first evidence of horizontal gene transfer of pesticide resistance to weeds, in a few plants from a single season; they found no evidence that any of the hybrids had survived in subsequent seasons.
+In 2007, the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined Scotts Miracle-Gro $500,000 when modified DNA from GM creeping bentgrass, was found within relatives of the same genus (Agrostis) as well as in native grasses up to 21 km (13 mi) from the test sites, released when freshly cut, wind-blown grass.
+In 2009, Mexico created a regulatory pathway for GM maize, but because Mexico is maize's center of diversity, concerns were raised about GM maize's effects on local strains. A 2001 report found Bt maize cross-breeding with conventional maize in Mexico. The data in this paper was later described as originating from an artifact and the publishing journal Nature stated that "the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper", although it did not retract the paper. A subsequent large-scale study, in 2005, found no evidence of gene flow in Oaxaca. However, other authors claimed to have found evidence of such gene flow.
+A 2010 study showed that about 83 percent of wild or weedy canola tested contained genetically modified herbicide resistance genes. According to the researchers, the lack of reports in the United States suggested that oversight and monitoring were inadequate.  A 2010 report stated that the advent of glyphosate-resistant weeds could cause GM crops to lose their effectiveness unless farmers combined glyphosate with other weed-management strategies.
+One way to avoid environmental contamination is genetic use restriction technology (GURT), also called "Terminator". This uncommercialized technology would allow the production of crops with sterile seeds, which would prevent the escape of GM traits. Groups concerned about food supplies had expressed concern that the technology would be used to limit access to fertile seeds. Another hypothetical technology known as "Traitor" or "T-GURT", would not render seeds sterile, but instead would require application of a chemical to GM crops to activate engineered traits. Groups such as Rural Advancement Foundation International raised concerns that further food safety and environmental testing needed to be done before T-GURT would be commercialized.
+
+=== Escape of modified crops ===
+The escape of genetically modified seed into neighboring fields, and the mixing of harvested products, is of concern to farmers who sell to countries that do not allow GMO imports.
+In 1999 scientists in Thailand claimed they had discovered unapproved glyphosate-resistant GM wheat in a grain shipment, even though it was only grown in test plots. No mechanism for the escape was identified.
+In 2000, Aventis StarLink GM corn was found in US markets and restaurants. It became the subject of a recall that started when Taco Bell-branded taco shells sold in supermarkets were found to contain it. StarLink was then discontinued. Registration for Starlink varieties was voluntarily withdrawn by Aventis in October 2000.
+American rice exports to Europe were interrupted in 2006 when the LibertyLink modification was found in commercial rice crops, although it had not been approved for release. An investigation by the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) failed to determine the cause of the contamination.
+In May 2013, unapproved glyphosate-resistant GM wheat  (but that had been approved for human consumption) was discovered in a farm in Oregon in a field that had been planted with winter wheat. The strain was developed by Monsanto, and had been field-tested from 1998 to 2005. The discovery threatened US wheat exports which totaled $8.1 billion in 2012. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan temporarily suspended winter wheat purchases as a result of the discovery. As of August 30, 2013, while the source of the modified wheat remained unknown, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan had resumed placing orders.
+
+==== Coexistence with conventional crops ====
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-13.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-13.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..7b6931b18
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-13.md
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 14/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The US has no legislation governing the relationship among mixtures of farms that grow organic, conventional, and GM crops. The country relies on a "complex but relaxed" combination of three federal agencies (FDA, EPA, and USDA/APHIS) and states' common law tort systems to manage coexistence. The Secretary of Agriculture convened an Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21) to study coexistence and make recommendations about the issue. The members of AC21 included representatives of the biotechnology industry, the organic food industry, farming communities, the seed industry, food manufacturers, State governments, consumer and community development groups, the medical profession, and academic researchers. AC21 recommended that a study assess the potential for economic losses to US organic farmers; that any serious losses lead to a crop insurance program, an education program to ensure that organic farmers put appropriate contracts in place and that neighboring GMO farmers take appropriate containment measures. Overall the report supported a diverse agriculture system supporting diverse farming systems.
+The EU implemented regulations specifically governing co-existence and traceability. Traceability has become commonplace in the food and feed supply chains of most countries, but GMO traceability is more challenging given strict legal thresholds for unwanted mixing. Since 2001, conventional and organic food and feedstuffs can contain up to 0.9% of authorised modified material without carrying a GMO label. (any trace of non-authorised modification is cause for a shipment to be rejected). Authorities require the ability to trace, detect and identify GMOs, and the several countries and interested parties created a non-governmental organization, Co-Extra, to develop such methods.
+
+=== Chemical use ===
+
+==== Pesticides ====
+Pesticides destroy, repel or mitigate pests (an organism that attacks or competes with a crop). A 2014 meta-analysis covering 147 original studies of farm surveys and field trials, and 15 studies from the researchers conducting the study, concluded that adoption of GM technology had reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, with the effect larger for insect-tolerant crops than herbicide-tolerant crops. Some doubt still remains on whether the reduced amounts of pesticides used actually invoke a lower negative environmental effect, since there is also a shift in the types of pesticides used, and different pesticides have different environmental effects. In August 2015, protests occurred in Hawaii over the possibility that birth defects were being caused by the heavy use of pesticides on new strains of GM crops being developed there. Hawaii uses 17 times the amount of pesticides per acre compared to the rest of the US.
+
+===== Herbicides =====
+The development of glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) plants changed the herbicide use profile away from more persistent, higher toxicity herbicides, such as atrazine, metribuzin and alachlor, and reduced the volume and harm of herbicide runoff. A study by Chuck Benbrook concluded that the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds had increased US herbicide use. That study cited a 23% increase (.3 kilograms/hectare)  for soybeans from 1996 to 2006, a 43% (.9 kg/ha) increase for cotton from 1996 to 2010 and a 16% (.5 kg/ha) decrease for corn from 1996 to 2010. However, this study came under scrutiny because Benbrook did not consider the fact that glyphosate is less toxic than other herbicides, thus net toxicity may decrease even as use increases. Graham Brookes accused Benbrook of subjective herbicide estimates because his data, provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, does not distinguish between genetically modified and non-genetically modified crops. Brookes had earlier published a study that found that the use of biotech crops had reduced the volume and environmental impact of herbicide and other pesticides, which contradicted Benbrook. Brookes stated that Benbrook had made "biased and inaccurate" assumptions.
+The environmental impact of herbicides is estimated in several studies through the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ); however, some authors criticize the use of this tool, considering it an inadequate and methodologically flawed measure for accurately assessing the environmental effects of pesticides and, in particular, herbicides. In the study by Kniss (2017), which did not use the EIQ but instead adopted an approach based on risk quotients for acute and chronic toxicity, the evolution of herbicide use intensity and relative toxicity in the United States over approximately 25 years was analyzed across six crops. Herbicide use intensity increased in all evaluated crops, including faster growth in some non–genetically modified crops. Despite this, the toxicity associated with herbicides did not increase proportionally: chronic toxicity decreased in soybean and rice, while acute toxicity showed reductions in corn/maize, soybean, cotton, and rice. In the most recent year evaluated in the study (2014–2015), glyphosate accounted for approximately 26% of applications in corn, 43% in soybean, and 45% in cotton, but was responsible for only 0.1, 0.3, and 3.5% of the chronic toxicity risk in these crops, respectively, due to its relatively low toxicological profile.
+
+===== Insecticides =====
+A claimed environmental benefit of Bt-cotton and maize is reduced insecticide use. A PG Economics study concluded that global pesticide use was reduced by 286,000 tons in 2006, decreasing pesticidal environmental impact by 15%. Another study concluded that insecticide use on cotton and corn during the years 1996 to 2005 fell by 35,600,000 kilograms (78,500,000 lb) of active ingredient, roughly equal to the annual amount applied in the European Union. A Bt cotton study in six northern Chinese provinces from 1990 to 2010 concluded that it halved the use of pesticides and doubled the level of ladybirds, lacewings and spiders and extended environmental benefits to neighbouring crops of maize, peanuts and soybeans.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-14.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-14.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f3a4f17f6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-14.md
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 15/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Resistant insect pests ===
+Resistance evolves naturally after a population has been subjected to selection pressure via repeated use of a single pesticide. In November 2009, Monsanto scientists found that the pink bollworm had become resistant to first generation Bt cotton in parts of Gujarat, India—that generation expresses one Bt gene, Cry1Ac. This was the first instance of Bt resistance confirmed by Monsanto. Similar resistance was later identified in Australia, China, Spain and the US.
+One strategy to delay Bt-resistance is to plant pest refuges using conventional crops, thereby diluting any resistant genes. Another is to develop crops with multiple Bt genes that target different receptors within the insect. In 2012, a Florida field trial demonstrated that army worms were resistant to Dupont-Dow's GM corn. This resistance was discovered in Puerto Rico in 2006, prompting Dow and DuPont to stop selling the product there. The European corn borer, one of Bt's primary targets, is also capable of developing resistance.
+
+== Economy ==
+GM food's economic value to farmers is one of its major benefits, including in developing nations. A 2010 study found that Bt corn provided economic benefits of $6.9 billion over the previous 14 years in five Midwestern states. The majority ($4.3 billion)  accrued to farmers producing non-Bt corn. This was attributed to European corn borer populations reduced by exposure to Bt corn, leaving fewer to attack conventional corn nearby. Agriculture economists calculated that "world surplus [increased by] $240.3 million for 1996. Of this total, the largest share (59%) went to U.S. farmers. Seed company Monsanto received the next largest share (21%), followed by US consumers (9%), the rest of the world (6%), and the germplasm supplier, Delta and Pine Land Company (5%)." PG Economics comprehensive 2012 study concluded that GM crops increased farm incomes worldwide by $14 billion in 2010, with over half this total going to farmers in developing countries.
+The main Bt crop grown by small farmers in developing countries is cotton. A 2006 review of Bt cotton findings by agricultural economists concluded, "the overall balance sheet, though promising, is mixed. Economic returns are highly variable over years, farm type, and geographical location". However, environmental activist Mark Lynas said that complete rejection of genetic engineering is "illogical and potentially harmful to the interests of poorer peoples and the environment".
+In 2013, the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) asked the EU to allow the development of agricultural GM technologies to enable more sustainable agriculture, by employing fewer land, water and nutrient resources. EASAC also criticizes the EU's "timeconsuming and expensive regulatory framework" and said that the EU had fallen behind in the adoption of GM technologies.
+
+=== Developing nations ===
+Disagreements about developing nations include the claimed need for increased food supplies, and how to achieve such an increase. Some scientists suggest that a second Green Revolution including use of modified crops is needed to provide sufficient food. The potential for genetically modified food to help developing nations was recognised by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, but as of 2008 they had found no conclusive evidence of a solution.
+Skeptics such as John Avise claim that apparent shortages are caused by problems in food distribution and politics, rather than production. Other critics say that the world has so many people because the second green revolution adopted unsustainable agricultural practices that left the world with more mouths to feed than the planet can sustain. Pfeiffer claimed that even if technological farming could feed the current population, its dependence on fossil fuels, which in 2006 he incorrectly predicted would reach peak output in 2010, would lead to a catastrophic rise in energy and food prices.
+Claimed deployment constraints to developing nations include the lack of easy access, equipment costs and intellectual property rights that hurt developing countries. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), an aid and research organization, was praised by the World Bank for its efforts, but the bank recommended that they shift to genetics research and productivity enhancement. Obstacles include access to patents, commercial licenses and the difficulty that developing countries have in accessing genetic resources and other intellectual property. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture attempted to remedy this problem, but results have been inconsistent. As a result, "orphan crops", such as teff, millets, cowpeas and indigenous plants, which are important in these countries receive little investment.
+Writing about Norman Borlaug's 2000 publication Ending world hunger: the promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry, the authors argued that Borlaug's warnings were still true in 2010:
+
+GM crops are as natural and safe as today's bread wheat, opined Dr. Borlaug, who also reminded agricultural scientists of their moral obligation to stand up to the antiscience crowd and warn policy makers that global food insecurity will not disappear without this new technology and ignoring this reality would make future solutions all the more difficult to achieve.
+
+=== Yield ===
+US maize yields were flat until the 1930s, when the adoption of conventional hybrid seeds caused them to increase by ~.8 bushels/acre (1937–1955). Thereafter a combination of improved genetics, fertilizer and pesticide availability and mechanization raised the rate of increase to 1.9 bushels per acre per year. In the years since the advent of GM maize, the rate increased slightly to 2.0. Average US maize yields were 174.2 bushels per acre in 2014.
+Commercial GM crops have traits that reduce yield loss from insect pressure or weed interference.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-15.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-15.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0d355ffdc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-15.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 16/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+==== 2014 review ====
+A 2014 review, concluded that GM crops' effects on farming were positive. According to The Economist, the meta-analysis considered all published English-language examinations of the agronomic and economic impacts between 1995 and March 2014. The study found that herbicide-tolerant crops have lower production costs, while for insect-resistant crops the reduced pesticide use was offset by higher seed prices, leaving overall production costs about the same.
+Yields increased 9% for herbicide tolerance and 25% for insect resistance. Farmers who adopted GM crops made 69% higher profits than those who did not. The review found that GM crops help farmers in developing countries, increasing yields by 14 percentage points.
+The researchers considered some studies that were not peer-reviewed, and a few that did not report sample sizes. They attempted to correct for publication bias, by considering sources beyond academic journals. The large data set allowed the study to control for potentially confounding variables such as fertiliser use. Separately, they concluded that the funding source did not influence study results.
+
+==== 2010 review ====
+A 2010 article, supported by CropLife International summarised the results of 49 peer-reviewed studies. On average, farmers in developed countries increased yields by 6% and 29% in developing countries.
+Tillage decreased by 25–58% on herbicide-resistant soybeans. Glyphosate-resistant crops allowed farmers to plant rows closer together as they did not have to control post-emergent weeds with mechanical tillage. Insecticide applications on Bt crops were reduced by 14–76%. 72% of farmers worldwide experienced positive economic results.
+
+==== 2009 review ====
+In 2009, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group opposed to genetic engineering and cloning of food animals, summarized peer-reviewed studies on the yield contribution of GM soybeans and maize in the US. The report concluded that other agricultural methods had made a greater contribution to national crop yield increases in recent years than genetic engineering.
+
+==== Wisconsin study ====
+A study unusually published as correspondence rather than as an article examined maize modified to express four traits (resistance to European corn borer, resistance to corn root worm, glyphosate tolerance and glyfosinate tolerance) singly and in combination in Wisconsin fields from 1990 to 2010. The variance in yield from year to year was reduced, equivalent to a yield increase of 0.8–4.2 bushels per acre. Bushel per acre yield changes were +6.4 for European corn borer resistance, +5.76 for glufosinate tolerance, −5.98 for glyphosate tolerance and −12.22 for corn rootworm resistance. The study found interactions among the genes in multi-trait hybrid strains, such that the net effect varied from the sum of the individual effects. For example, the combination of European corn borer resistance and glufosinate tolerance increased yields by 3.13, smaller than either of the individual traits
+
+=== Market dynamics ===
+The seed industry is dominated by a small number of vertically integrated firms. In 2011, 73% of the global market was controlled by 10 companies.
+In 2001, the USDA reported that industry consolidation led to economies of scale, but noted that the move by some companies to divest their seed operations questioned the long-term viability of these conglomerates. Two economists have said that the seed companies' market power could raise welfare despite their pricing strategies, because "even though price discrimination is often considered to be an unwanted market distortion, it may increase total welfare by increasing total output and by making goods available to markets where they would not appear otherwise."
+Market share gives firms the ability to set or influence price, dictate terms, and act as a barrier to entry. It also gives firms bargaining power over governments in policy making. In March 2010, the US Department of Justice and the US Department of Agriculture held a meeting in Ankeny, Iowa, to look at the competitive dynamics in the seed industry. Christine Varney, who heads the antitrust division in the Justice Department, said that her team was investigating whether biotech-seed patents were being abused. A key issue was how Monsanto licenses its patented glyphosate-tolerance trait that was in 93 percent of US soybeans grown in 2009. About 250 family farmers, consumers and other critics of corporate agriculture held a town meeting prior to the government meeting to protest Monsanto's purchase of independent seed companies, patenting seeds and then raising seed prices.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-16.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-16.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..dbea08528
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-16.md
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 17/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Intellectual property ===
+Traditionally, farmers in all nations saved their own seed from year to year. However, since the early 1900s hybrid crops have been widely used in the developed world and seeds to grow these crops are purchased each year from seed producers. The offspring of the hybrid corn, while still viable, lose hybrid vigor (the beneficial traits of the parents). This benefit of first-generation hybrid seeds is the primary reason for not planting second-generation seed. However, for non-hybrid GM crops, such as GM soybeans, seed companies use intellectual property law and tangible property common law, each expressed in contracts, to prevent farmers from planting saved seed. For example, Monsanto's typical bailment license (covering transfer of the seeds themselves) forbids saving seeds, and also requires purchasers to sign a separate patent license agreement.
+Corporations say that they need to prevent seed piracy, to fulfill financial obligations to shareholders, and to finance further development. DuPont spent approximately half its $2 billion research and development (R&D) budget on agriculture in 2011 while Monsanto spends 9–10% of sales on R&D.
+Detractors such as Greenpeace say that patent rights give corporations excessive control over agriculture. The Center for Ecoliteracy claimed that "patenting seeds gives companies excessive power over something that is vital for everyone". A 2000 report stated, "If the rights to these tools are strongly and universally enforced - and not extensively licensed or provided pro bono in the developing world – then the potential applications of GM technologies described previously are unlikely to benefit the less developed nations of the world for a long time" (i.e. until after the restrictions expire).
+Monsanto has patented its seed and it obligates farmers who choose to buy its seeds to sign a license agreement, obligating them store or sell, but not plant, all the crops that they grow.
+Besides large agri-businesses, in some instances, GM crops are also provided by science departments or research organisations which have no commercial interests.
+
+==== Lawsuits filed against farmers for patent infringement ====
+Monsanto has filed patent infringement suits against 145 farmers, but proceeded to trial with only 11. In some of the latter, the defendants claimed unintentional contamination by gene flow, but Monsanto won every case. Monsanto Canada's Director of Public Affairs stated, "It is not, nor has it ever been Monsanto Canada's policy to enforce its patent on Roundup Ready crops when they are present on a farmer's field by accident ... Only when there has been a knowing and deliberate violation of its patent rights will Monsanto act." In 2009 Monsanto announced that after its soybean patent expires in 2014, it will no longer prohibit farmers from planting soybean seeds that they grow.
+One example of such litigation is the Monsanto v. Schmeiser case.  This case is widely misunderstood. In 1997, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, discovered that one of his fields had canola that was resistant to Roundup. He had not purchased this seed, which had blown onto his land from neighboring fields. He later harvested the area and saved the crop in the back of a pickup truck. Before the 1998 planting, Monsanto representatives informed Schmeiser that using this crop for seed would infringe the patent, and offered him a license, which Schmeiser refused. According to the Canadian Supreme Court, after this conversation "Schmeiser nevertheless took the harvest he had saved in the pick-up truck to a seed treatment plant and had it treated for use as seed. Once treated, it could be put to no other use. Mr. Schmeiser planted the treated seed in nine fields, covering approximately 1,000 acres in all ... A series of independent tests by different experts confirmed that the canola Mr. Schmeiser planted and grew in 1998 was 95 to 98 percent Roundup resistant." After further negotiations between Schmeiser and Monsanto broke down, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement and prevailed in the initial case. Schmeiser appealed and lost, and appealed again to the Canadian Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto's favor, stating that "it is clear on the findings of the trial judge that the appellants saved, planted, harvested and sold the crop from plants containing the gene and plant cell patented by Monsanto".
+
+=== International trade ===
+GM crops have been the source of international trade disputes and tensions within food-exporting nations over whether introduction of genetically modified crops would endanger exports to other countries.
+In Canada in 2010, flax exports to Europe were rejected when traces of an experimental GM flax were found in shipments. This led a member of Parliament to propose Private Member's Bill C-474, which would have required that "an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted". Opponents claimed that "incorporating stringent socio-economic standards into the science-based regulatory system could spell the end of private research funding; because if private biotechnology companies can't see the possibility of a return on their investment, they'll invest their research budget elsewhere". The bill was defeated 176 to 97 in 2011.
+
+== Regulation ==
+
+=== Labeling ===
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-17.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-17.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..bcdd2a55a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-17.md
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 18/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+==== Status ====
+In 2014, 64 countries required labeling of all GM foods. These include the European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, China and India. As of March 2015, Israel was in the process of issuing regulations for labeling of food with ingredients from GMOs.
+Alaska required labeling of GMO fish and shellfish in 2005, even though no GM fish had been approved by the FDA at the time.  A 2014 Vermont law went into effect on July 1, 2016, and some food manufacturers (including General Mills, Mars, Kellogg's, the Campbell Soup Company, PepsiCo, ConAgra, Frito-Lay, and Bimbo Bakeries USA) began distributing products either locally or nationwide with labels such as "Partially produced with Genetic Engineering".  Other manufacturers removed about 3,000 non-compliant products from sale in Vermont.  The federal government of the United States passed a law at the end of that month pre-empting all state laws, including Vermont's.  The law requires labeling regulations to be issued by July 2018, and allows indirect disclosure such as with a phone number, bar code, or web site.  It is unclear whether the rules will require labeling of oils and sugars from GM crops, where the final product does not contain any "genetic material" as mentioned in the law.
+Prior to the new federal rules taking effect, while it does require pre-market approval, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not required GMO labeling as long as there are no differences in health, environmental safety, and consumer expectations based on the packaging.
+The federal rules come after GMO labeling was debated in many state legislatures and defeated in popular referendums in Oregon (2002 and 2014), Colorado (2014), California Proposition 37 (2012), and Washington Initiative 522 (2012). Connecticut and Maine had passed laws in 2013 and 2014 respectively, which would have required GMO food labels if Northeast states with a population of at least 20 million had passed similar laws (and for Connecticut, representing at least four states).
+Other jurisdictions make such labeling voluntary or have had plans to require labeling.  Major GM food crop exporters like the United States (until 2018), Argentina, and Canada have adopted voluntary labeling approaches; China and Brazil have major GM (largely non-food) crops and have adopted mandatory labelling.
+
+==== Arguments ====
+The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have opposed mandatory labeling absent scientific evidence of harm. The AMA said that even voluntary labeling is misleading unless accompanied by focused consumer education. The AAAS stated that mandatory labeling "can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers".
+
+[Labeling] efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow "unnatural" and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested.
+The American Public Health Association, the British Medical Association and the Public Health Association of Australia support mandatory labeling. The European Commission argued that mandatory labeling and traceability are needed to allow for informed choice, avoid potential misleading of consumers and facilitate the withdrawal of products if adverse effects on health or the environment are discovered.  A 2007 review on the effect of labeling laws found that once labeling went into effect, few products continued to contain GM ingredients.
+
+=== Objectivity of regulatory bodies ===
+Groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and Center for Food Safety that have expressed concerns about the FDA's lack of a requirement for additional testing for GMO's, lack of required labeling and the presumption that GMO's are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS), have questioned whether the FDA is too close to companies that seek approval for their products.
+Critics in the U.S. protested the appointment of lobbyists to senior positions in the Food and Drug Administration. Michael R. Taylor, a former Monsanto lobbyist, was appointed as a senior adviser to the FDA on food safety in 1991. After leaving the FDA, Taylor became a vice-president of Monsanto. On 7 July 2009, Taylor returned to government as a senior adviser to the FDA Commissioner.
+In 2001, when the Starlink corn recall became public, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was criticized for being slow to react by Joseph Mendelson III of the Center for Food Safety. He also criticized the EPA and Aventis CropScience for statements at the time of the recall, that indicated they did not anticipate that such a thing would happen.
+The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee that reviewed Canada's regulations in 2003 was accused by environmental and citizen groups of not representing the full spectrum of public interests and for being too closely aligned to industry groups.
+Most of the Chinese National Biosafety Committee are involved in biotechnology, a situation that led to criticisms that they do not represent a wide enough range of public concerns.
+
+=== Litigation and regulation disputes ===
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-18.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-18.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..a2561b4ef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-18.md
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 19/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+==== United States ====
+Four federal district court suits have been brought against Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the agency within USDA that regulates genetically modified plants. Two involved field trials (herbicide-tolerant turfgrass in Oregon; pharmaceutical-producing corn and sugar in Hawaii) and two the deregulation of GM alfalfa. and GM sugar beet. APHIS lost all four cases at trial, with the judges ruling they failed to diligently follow the guidelines set out in the National Environmental Policy Act. However, the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide ban on GM alfalfa and an appeal court allowed the partial deregulation of GM sugar beets. After APHIS prepared Environmental Impact Statements for both alfalfa and sugar beets they were approved.
+In 2014, Maui County, Hawaii approved an initiative calling for a moratorium on GMO production and research. The initiative specified penalties including fines and jail for knowing violations and did not limit its scope to commercial agriculture. The initiative passed by about 50.2 to 47.9 percent.
+On December 15, 2015, the New York Times ran an op-ed titled "Are You Eating Frankenfish?", saying that the United States congress will debate whether genetically engineered salmon should be labeled.
+
+==== European Union ====
+
+Until the 1990s, Europe's regulation was less strict than in the U.S. In 1998, the use of MON810, a Bt expressing maize conferring resistance to the European corn borer, was approved for commercial cultivation in Europe. However, in the 1990s a series of unrelated food crises created consumer apprehension about food safety in general and eroded public trust in government oversight. A bovine spongiform encephalopathy outbreak was the most publicized. In 1998, a de facto moratorium led to the suspension of approvals of new GMOs in the EU pending the adoption of revised rules.
+In the mid-1990s, government approval of some GMO crops in the United States precipitated public concern in Europe and led to a dramatic decrease in American exports to Europe. "Prior to 1997, corn exports to Europe represented about 4% of total US corn exports, generating about $300 million in sales ... For example, before 1997, the U.S. sold about 1.75 million tons of corn annually to Spain and Portugal ... But in the 1998–99 crop year, Spain bought less than a tenth of the previous year's amount and Portugal bought none at all."
+In May 2003, the US and twelve other countries filed a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization that the EU was violating international trade agreements, by blocking imports of US farm products through its ban on GM food. The countries argued that the EU's regulatory process was far too slow and its standards were unreasonable given the scientific evidence showing that the crops were safe. The case was lobbied by Monsanto and France's Aventis, as well as by US agricultural groups such as the National Corn Growers Association. In response, in June 2003, the European Parliament ratified a U.N. biosafety protocol regulating international trade in GM food, and in July agreed to new regulations requiring labeling and traceability, as well as an opt-out provision for individual countries. The approval of new GMOs resumed in May 2004. While GMOs have been approved since then, approvals remain controversial and various countries have utilized opt-out provisions. In 2006, the World Trade Organization ruled that the pre-2004 restrictions had been violations, although the ruling had little immediate effect since the moratorium had already been lifted.
+In late 2007, the US ambassador to France recommended "moving to retaliation" to cause "some pain" against France and the European Union in an attempt to fight the French ban and changes in European policy toward genetically modified crops, according to a leaked diplomatic cable.
+20 out of 28 European Countries (including Switzerland) said No to GMOs until October 2015.
+
+==== Australia ====
+In May 2014, the Supreme Court of the Australian state of Western Australia dismissed "Marsh v. Baxter".  The plaintiff was Steve Marsh, an organic farmer, and the defendant was Michael Baxter, his lifelong neighbour, who grew GM canola.  In late 2010, Marsh found seeds from Baxter's crop in his fields.  Later, Marsh found escaped GM canola growing amidst his crop.  Marsh reported the seed and plants to his local organic certification board, and lost the organic certification of some 70 per cent of his 478 hectare farm.  Marsh sued on the grounds that Baxter used a method of harvesting his crop that was substandard and negligent, and on the basis that his land had been widely contaminated.  In its summary judgment, the court found that approximately 245 cut canola plants were blown by the wind into Marsh's property, Eagle's Rest. However, Baxter's method (swathing) was "orthodox and well accepted harvest methodology". "In 2011, eight GM canola plants were found to have grown up as self-sown volunteer plants on Eagle Rest", which "were identified and pulled out", and "no more volunteer RR canola plants grew on Eagle Rest in subsequent years".  The summary judgment stated that the loss of organic certification "was occasioned by the erroneous application of governing NASAA Standards applicable to NASAA organic operators as regards GMOs (genetically modified organisms) at the time". and that "[t]he absence of a reliable underlying evidentiary platform to support a perpetual injunction against swathing was a significant deficiency".
+On June 18, 2014, Marsh announced that he had filed an appeal. One ground was the costs of $803,989 awarded against him. The appeal hearing commenced on 23 March 2015 and was adjourned on 25 March "to deal with an order to ascertain whether Mr Baxter's defence has been financially supported by GM-seed supplier Monsanto and/or the Pastoralists and Graziers Association (PGA)". The Court of Appeal subsequently dismissed the appeal and ordered Marsh to pay Baxter's costs.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-19.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-19.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..9335e47f4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-19.md
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 20/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+==== Philippines ====
+A petition filed May 17, 2013, by environmental group Greenpeace Southeast Asia and farmer-scientist coalition Masipag (Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura) asked the appellate court to stop the planting of Bt eggplant in test fields, saying the impacts of such an undertaking to the environment, native crops and human health are still unknown.  The Court of Appeals granted the petition, citing the precautionary principle stating "when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish the threat". Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration in June 2013 and on September 20, 2013, the Court of Appeals chose to uphold their May decision saying the bt talong field trials violate the people's constitutional right to a "balanced and healthful ecology". The Supreme Court on December 8, 2015, permanently stopped the field testing for Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) talong (eggplant), upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals which stopped the field trials for the genetically modified eggplant.
+In April 2023, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a Writ of Kalikasan ordering the Philippine Department of Agriculture to stop the commercial distribution of genetically modified rice and eggplants in the country.
+
+=== Process-based regulation ===
+Scientists have argued or elaborated a need for an evidence-based reform of regulation of genetically modified crops that moves it from regulation based on characteristics of the development-process (process-based regulation) to characteristics of the product (product-based regulation).
+
+=== Innovation in technology and regulatory law ===
+The first genetically modified crops were made with transgenic approaches, introducing foreign genes and sometimes using bacteria to transfer the genes.  In the US, these foreign genetic elements placed the resulting plant under the jurisdiction of the USDA under the Plant Protection Act.  However, as of 2010, newer genetic engineering technologies like genome editing have allowed scientists to modify plant genomes without adding foreign genes, thus escaping USDA regulation.  Critics have called for regulation to be changed to keep up with changing technology.
+
+== Legislation ==
+See Farmer Assurance Provision.  (This bill is commonly referred to as the "Monsanto Protection Act" by its critics.)
+
+== African controversies ==
+In 2002, in the midst of a famine, Zambia refused emergency food aid that contained food from genetically modified crops, based on the precautionary principle.
+During a conference in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, Kingsley Amoako, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), encouraged African nations to accept GM food and expressed dissatisfaction in the public's negative opinion of biotechnology.
+Studies for Uganda showed that transgenic bananas had a high potential to reduce rural poverty but that urban consumers with a relatively higher income might reject them.
+Critics claimed that shipment of US food to southern Africa was more about promoting the adoption of biotech crops in the region than about hunger. The US was supplying Africa with meals and support during a food crisis they were facing in the early 2000s. However, once some of the African countries realized that these shipments contained GM maize, they rejected the shipments and stopped releasing the food that had been sent to them. Critics accused the US of "exploiting the Southern African famine as a public relations tool". The U.S. countered these comments by saying that European nations were letting millions of Africans suffer from hunger and starvation because of "irrational fears over hypothetical and unproven risks". The US had a pre-GMO policy of shipping US crops as food aid, rather than buying crops in/near the countries that needed aid. The US policy was claimed to be more costly than Europe's.
+Genetically modified food controversies in Ghana have been widespread since 2013.
+
+== Indian controversies ==
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-2.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..cbed91131
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 3/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+In May 2012, a group called "Take the Flour Back" led by Gerald Miles protested plans by a group from Rothamsted Experimental Station, based in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, England, to conduct an experimental trial wheat genetically modified to repel aphids. The researchers, led by John Pickett, wrote a letter to the group in early May 2012, asking them to call off their protest, aimed for 27 May 2012. Group member Lucy Harrap said that the group was concerned about spread of the crops into nature, and cited examples of outcomes in the United States and Canada. Rothamsted Research and Sense about Science ran question and answer sessions about such a potential.
+The March Against Monsanto is an international grassroots movement and protest against Monsanto corporation, a producer of genetically modified organism (GMOs) and Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide.  The movement was founded by Tami Canal in response to the failure of California Proposition 37, a ballot initiative which would have required labeling food products made from GMOs.  Advocates support mandatory labeling laws for food made from GMOs .
+The initial march took place on May 25, 2013.  The number of protesters who took part is uncertain; figures of "hundreds of thousands" and the organizers' estimate of "two million" were variously cited. Events took place in between 330 and 436 cities around the world, mostly in the United States. Many protests occurred in Southern California, and some participants carried signs expressing support for mandatory labeling of GMOs that read "Label GMOs, It's Our Right to Know", and "Real Food 4 Real People". Canal said that the movement would continue its "anti-GMO cause" beyond the initial event. Further marches occurred in October 2013 and in May 2014 and 2015. The protests were reported by news outlets including ABC News, the Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and CNN (in the United States), and The Guardian (outside the United States).
+Monsanto said that it respected people's rights to express their opinion on the topic, but maintained that its seeds improved agriculture by helping farmers produce more from their land while conserving resources, such as water and energy. The company reiterated that genetically modified foods were safe and improved crop yields. Similar sentiments were expressed by the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, of which Monsanto is a member.
+In July 2013, the agricultural biotechnology industry launched a GMO transparency initiative called GMO Answers to address consumers' questions about GM foods in the U.S. food supply. GMO Answers' resources included conventional and organic farmers, agribusiness experts, scientists, academics, medical doctors and nutritionists, and "company experts" from founding members of the Council for Biotechnology Information, which funds the initiative. Founding members include BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto Company and Syngenta.
+In October 2013, a group called The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), posted a statement claiming that there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs, which was signed by about 200 scientists in various fields in its first week. On January 25, 2015, their statement was formally published as a whitepaper by Environmental Sciences Europe:
+
+==== Direct action ====
+Earth Liberation Front, Greenpeace and others have disrupted GMO research around the world. Within the UK and other European countries, as of 2014 80 crop trials by academic or governmental research institutes had been destroyed by protesters. In some cases, threats and violence against people or property were carried out. In 1999, activists burned the biotech lab of Michigan State University, destroying the results of years of work and property worth $400,000.
+In 1987, the ice-minus strain of P. syringae became the first genetically modified organism (GMO) to be released into the environment when a strawberry field in California was sprayed with the bacteria. This was followed by the spraying of a crop of potato seedlings. The plants in both test fields were uprooted by activist groups, but were re-planted the next day.
+In 2011, Greenpeace paid reparations when its members broke into the premises of an Australian scientific research organization, CSIRO, and destroyed a genetically modified wheat plot. The sentencing judge accused Greenpeace of cynically using junior members to avoid risking their own freedom. The offenders were given 9-month suspended sentences.
+On August 8, 2013, protesters uprooted an experimental plot of golden rice in the Philippines. British author, journalist, and environmental activist Mark Lynas reported in Slate that the vandalism was carried out by a group led by the extreme-left Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas or Peasant Movement of the Philippines (KMP), to the dismay of other protesters. Golden rice is designed to prevent vitamin A deficiency which, according to Helen Keller International, blinds or kills hundreds of thousands of children annually in developing countries.
+
+=== Response to anti-GMO sentiment ===
+In 2017, two documentaries were released which countered the growing anti-GMO sentiment among the public. These included Food Evolution and Science Moms. Per the Science Moms director, the film "focuses on providing a science and evidence-based counter-narrative to the pseudoscience-based parenting narrative that has cropped up in recent years".
+In 2016, 158 Nobel prize laureates in science signed an open letter in support of genetically modified farming and called for Greenpeace to cease its anti-scientific campaign, especially against the Golden Rice.
+
+=== Conspiracy theories ===
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-20.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-20.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..b18be8d3f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-20.md
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 21/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+India is an agrarian country with around 60% of its people depending directly or indirectly upon agriculture.  From 1995 to 2013, a total of 296,438 farmers have killed themselves in India, or an average of 16,469 suicides per year. During the same period, about 9.5 million people died per year in India from other causes including malnutrition, diseases and suicides that were non-farming related, or about 171 million deaths from 1995 to 2013.  Activists and scholars have offered a number of conflicting reasons for farmer suicides, such as monsoon failure, high debt burdens, genetically modified crops, government policies, public mental health, personal issues and family problems. There are also accusations of states reporting inaccurate data on farmer suicides.
+In India, GM cotton yields in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu resulted in an average 42% increase in yield in 2002, the first year of commercial planting. A severe drought in Andhra Pradesh that year prevented any increase in yield, because the GM strain was not drought tolerant. Drought-tolerant variants were later developed. Driven by substantially reduced losses to insect predation, by 2011 88% of Indian cotton was modified. There are economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton to farmers in India. A study from 2002 through 2008 on the economic impacts of Bt cotton in India, showed that Bt cotton increased yields, profits and living standards of smallholder farmers. However, recently cotton bollworm has been developing resistance to Bt cotton. Consequently, in 2012 Maharashtra banned Bt cotton and ordered an independent socioeconomic study of its use. Indian regulators cleared the Bt brinjal, a genetically modified eggplant, for commercialisation in October 2009. After opposition by some scientists, farmers and environmental groups, a moratorium was imposed on its release in February 2010 "for as long as it is needed to establish public trust and confidence".
+As of 1 January 2013, all foods containing GMOs must be labelled. The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 states that "every package containing the genetically modified food shall bear at the top of its principal display panel the letters 'GM.'" The rules apply to 19 products including biscuits, breads, cereals and pulses, and a few others. The law faced criticism from consumer rights activists as well as from the packaged-food industry; both sides had major concerns that no logistical framework or regulations had been established to guide the law's implementation and enforcement. On March 21, 2014, the Indian government revalidated 10 GM-based food crops and allowed field trials of GM food crops, including wheat, rice and maize.
+
+== See also ==
+
+Food sovereignty
+Food Fray, a book on the subject
+Let Them Eat Precaution, a book on the subject
+Religious views on genetically modified foods
+
+== References ==
+
+== External links ==
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-3.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..1e6093e1d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 4/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+There are various conspiracy theories related to the production and sale of genetically modified crops and genetically modified food that have been identified by some commentators such as Michael Shermer. Generally, these conspiracy theories posit that GMOs are being knowingly and maliciously introduced into the food supply either as a means to unduly enrich agribusinesses or as a means to poison or pacify the population.
+A work seeking to explore risk perception over GMOs in Turkey identified a belief among the conservative political and religious figures who were opposed to GMOs that GMOs were "a conspiracy by Jewish Multinational Companies and Israel for world domination." Additionally, a Latvian study showed that a segment of the population believed that GMOs were part of a greater conspiracy theory to poison the population of the country.
+
+== Lawsuits ==
+
+=== Foundation on Economic Trends v. Heckler ===
+In 1983, environmental groups and protesters delayed the field tests of the genetically modified ice-minus strain of P. syringae with legal challenges.
+
+=== Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala ===
+In this case, the plaintiff argued both for mandatory labeling on the basis of consumer demand, and that GMO foods should undergo the same testing requirements as food additives because they are "materially changed" and have potentially unidentified health risks. The plaintiff also alleged that the FDA did not follow the Administrative Procedures Act in formulating and disseminating its policy on GMO's.  The federal district court rejected all of those arguments and found that the FDA's determination that GMO's are generally recognized as safe was neither arbitrary nor capricious.  The court gave deference to the FDA's process on all issues, leaving future plaintiffs little legal recourse to challenge the FDA's policy on GMO's.
+
+=== Diamond v. Chakrabarty ===
+The Diamond v. Chakrabarty case was on the question of whether GMOs can be patented. On 16 June 1980, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 split decision, held that "A live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter" under the meaning of U.S. patent law.
+
+== Scientific publishing ==
+Scientific publishing on the safety and effects of GM foods is controversial.
+
+=== Bt maize ===
+
+One of the first incidents occurred in 1999, when Nature published a paper on potential toxic effects of Bt maize on butterflies. The paper produced a public uproar and demonstrations, however by 2001 multiple follow-up studies had concluded that "the most common types of Bt maize pollen are not toxic to monarch larvae in concentrations the insects would encounter in the fields" and that they had "brought that particular question to a close".
+Concerned scientists began to patrol the scientific literature and react strongly, both publicly and privately, to discredit conclusions they view as flawed in order to prevent unjustified public outcry and regulatory action. A 2013 Scientific American article noted that a "tiny minority" of biologists have published concerns about GM food, and said that scientists who support the use of GMOs in food production are often overly dismissive of them.
+
+=== Restrictive end-user agreements ===
+Prior to 2010, scientists wishing to conduct research on commercial GM plants or seeds were unable to do so, because of restrictive end-user agreements. Cornell University's Elson Shields was the spokesperson for one group of scientists who opposed such restrictions. The group submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2009 protesting that "as a result of restrictive access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology".
+A 2009 Scientific American editorial quoted a scientist who said that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were blocked from publication when they returned "unflattering" results. While favoring protection of intellectual property rights, the editors called for the restrictions to be lifted and for the EPA to require, as a condition of approval, that independent researchers have unfettered access to genetically modified products for research.
+In December 2009, the American Seed Trade Association agreed to "allow public researchers greater freedom to study the effects of GM food crops". The companies signed blanket agreements permitting such research. This agreement left many scientists optimistic about the future; other scientists still express concern as to whether this agreement has the ability to "alter what has been a research environment rife with obstruction and suspicion". Monsanto previously had research agreements (i.e., Academic Research Licenses) with approximately 100 universities that allowed for university scientists to conduct research on their GM products with no oversight.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-4.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..df174bc7c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 5/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Reviews ===
+A 2011 analysis by Diels et al., reviewed 94 peer-reviewed studies pertaining to GMO safety to assess whether conflicts of interest correlated with outcomes that cast GMOs in a favorable light. They found that financial conflict of interest was not associated with study outcome (p = 0.631) while author affiliation to industry (i.e., a professional conflict of interest) was strongly associated with study outcome (p < 0.001). Of the 94 studies that were analyzed, 52% did not declare funding. 10% of the studies were categorized as "undetermined" with regard to professional conflict of interest. Of the 43 studies with financial or professional conflicts of interest, 28 studies were compositional studies. According to Marc Brazeau, an association between professional conflict of interest and positive study outcomes can be skewed because companies typically contract with independent researchers to perform follow-up studies only after in-house research uncovers favorable results. In-house research that uncovers negative or unfavorable results for a novel GMO is generally not further pursued.
+A 2013 review, of 1,783 papers on genetically modified crops and food published between 2002 and 2012 found no plausible evidence of dangers from the use of then marketed GM crops.
+In a 2014 review, Zdziarski et al. examined 21 published studies of the histopathology of GI tracts of rats that were fed diets derived from GM crops, and identified some systemic flaws in this area of the scientific literature. Most studies were performed years after the approval of the crop for human consumption. Papers were often imprecise in their descriptions of the histological results and the selection of study endpoints, and lacked necessary details about methods and results. The authors called for the development of better study guidelines for determining the long-term safety of eating GM foods.
+A 2016 study by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that GM foods are safe for human consumption and they could find no conclusive evidence that they harm the environment nor wildlife. They analysed over 1.000 studies over the previous 30 years that GM crops have been available, reviewed 700 written presentations submitted by interested bodies and heard 80 witnesses. They concluded that GM crops had given farmers economic advantages but found no evidence that GM crops had increased yields. They also noted that weed resistance to GM crops could cause major agricultural problems but this could be addressed by better farming procedures.
+
+=== Alleged data manipulation ===
+A University of Naples investigation suggested that images in eight papers on animals were intentionally altered and/or misused. The leader of the research group, Federico Infascelli, rejected the claim. The research concluded that mother goats fed GM soybean meal secreted fragments of the foreign gene in their milk. In December 2015 one of the papers was retracted for "self-plagiarism", although the journal noted that the results remained valid. A second paper was retracted in March 2016 after The University of Naples concluded that "multiple heterogeneities were likely attributable to digital manipulation, raising serious doubts on the reliability of the findings".
+
+== Health ==
+There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction. Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.
+
+The WHO emphasizes that conventional foods are generally regarded as safe on the basis of their long-established history of consumption, and new varieties developed through traditional breeding techniques are often placed on the market without mandatory safety assessments, even though such processes may lead to changes in certain characteristics, whether beneficial or potentially adverse. In contrast, in most regulatory systems genetically modified foods are required to undergo specific, case-by-case safety evaluations prior to commercialization, including assessments of possible effects on human health and the environment.
+The ENTRANSFOOD project was a European Commission-funded scientist group chartered to set a research program to address public concerns about the safety and value of agricultural biotechnology. It concluded that "the combination of existing test methods provides a sound test-regime to assess the safety of GM crops." In 2010, the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation reported that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."
+
+Consensus among scientists and regulators pointed to the need for improved testing technologies and protocols. Transgenic and cisgenic organisms are treated similarly when assessed. However, in 2012 the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GMO Panel said that "novel hazards" could be associated with transgenic strains. In a 2016 review, Domingo concluded that studies in recent years had established that GM soybeans, rice, corn, and wheat do not differ from the corresponding conventional crops in terms of short-term human health effects, but recommended that further studies of long-term effects be conducted.
+
+=== Substantial equivalence ===
+Most conventional agricultural products are the products of genetic manipulation via traditional cross-breeding and hybridization.
+Governments manage the marketing and release of GM foods on a case-by-case basis. Countries differ in their risk assessments and regulations. Marked differences distinguish the US from Europe. Crops not intended as foods are generally not reviewed for food safety. GM foods are not tested in humans before marketing because they are not a single chemical, nor are they intended to be ingested using specific doses and intervals, which complicate clinical study design. Regulators examine the genetic modification, related protein products and any changes that those proteins make to the food.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-5.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-5.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..fbfd21194
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-5.md
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 6/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Regulators check that GM foods are "substantially equivalent" to their conventional counterparts, to detect any negative unintended consequences. New protein(s) that differ from conventional food proteins or anomalies that arise in the substantial equivalence comparison require further toxicological analysis.
+In 1999, Andrew Chesson of the Rowett Research Institute warned that substantial equivalence testing "could be flawed in some cases" and that current safety tests could allow harmful substances to enter the human food supply. The same year Millstone, Brunner and Mayer argued that the standard was a pseudo-scientific product of politics and lobbying that was created to reassure consumers and aid biotechnology companies to reduce the time and cost of safety testing. They suggested that GM foods have extensive biological, toxicological and immunological tests and that substantial equivalence should be abandoned. This commentary was criticized for misrepresenting history, for distorting existing data and poor logic. Kuiper claimed that it oversimplified safety assessments and that equivalence testing involves more than chemical tests, possibly including toxicity testing. Keler and Lappe supported Congressional legislation to replace the substantial equivalence standard with safety studies. In a 2016 review, Domingo criticized the use of the "substantial equivalence" concept as a measure of the safety of GM crops.
+Kuiper examined this process further in 2002, finding that substantial equivalence does not measure absolute risks, but instead identifies differences between new and existing products. He claimed that characterizing differences is properly a starting point for a safety assessment and "the concept of substantial equivalence is an adequate tool in order to identify safety issues related to genetically modified products that have a traditional counterpart". Kuiper noted practical difficulties in applying this standard, including the fact that traditional foods contain many toxic or carcinogenic chemicals and that existing diets were never proven to be safe. This lack of knowledge re conventional food means that modified foods may differ in anti-nutrients and natural toxins that have never been identified in the original plant, possibly allowing harmful changes to be missed. In turn, positive modifications may also be missed. For example, corn damaged by insects often contains high levels of fumonisins, carcinogenic toxins made by fungi that travel on insects' backs and that grow in the wounds of damaged corn. Studies show that most Bt corn has lower levels of fumonisins than conventional insect-damaged corn. Workshops and consultations organized by the OECD, WHO, and FAO have worked to acquire data and develop better understanding of conventional foods, for use in assessing GM foods.
+A survey of publications comparing the intrinsic qualities of modified and conventional crop lines (examining genomes, proteomes and metabolomes) concluded that GM crops had less impact on gene expression or on protein and metabolite levels than the variability generated by conventional breeding.
+In a 2013 review, Herman (Dow AgroSciences) and Price (FDA, retired) argued that transgenesis is less disruptive than traditional breeding techniques because the latter routinely involve more changes (mutations, deletions, insertions and rearrangements) than the relatively limited changes (often single gene) in genetic engineering. The FDA found that all of the 148 transgenic events that they evaluated to be substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, as have Japanese regulators for 189 submissions including combined-trait products. This equivalence was confirmed by more than 80 peer-reviewed publications. Hence, the authors argue, compositional equivalence studies uniquely required for GM food crops may no longer be justified on the basis of scientific uncertainty.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-6.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-6.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..39d1b8f54
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-6.md
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 7/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Allergenicity ===
+A well-known risk of genetic modification is the introduction of an allergen. Allergen testing is routine for products intended for food, and passing those tests is part of the regulatory requirements. Organizations such as the European Green Party and Greenpeace emphasize this risk. The use of genes from known allergenic sources is discouraged in the research and development of GM foods. A 2005 review of the results from allergen testing stated that "no biotech proteins in foods have been documented to cause allergic reactions". Regulatory authorities require that new modified foods be tested for allergenicity before they are marketed. The Codex Alimentarius recommends a weight-of-evidence safety approach for assessing the allergenic potential of genetically modified crops, including the history of exposure and safety of the source of the inserted gene, the structure of the protein, its stability to pepsin digestion, and the degree of exposure in the gastrointestinal tract as a function of the abundance of the recombinant protein in the food.
+In the assessment of the allergenic safety of genetically modified organisms, bioinformatics is used to analyze whether newly expressed proteins show similarity to known human allergens. This process is based on comparing the amino acid sequences of the introduced proteins with specialized allergen databases, allowing verification of whether the protein corresponds to a previously characterized allergen or presents potential for cross-reactivity, i.e., whether its structure is sufficiently similar to that of a known allergen to be recognized by the same IgE antibodies in already sensitized individuals.
+The risk that an expressed protein may sensitize human populations and become a new food allergen is assessed on the basis of biochemical and physical aspects, particularly resistance to pepsin digestion and the level of expression in the genetically modified food. Proteins that persist longer during digestion are more likely to expose the gastrointestinal immune system in ways that may trigger allergic reactions. Although resistance to digestion alone does not allow a protein to be classified as allergenic, there is a non-absolute relationship between greater stability in the gastrointestinal tract and a higher likelihood of immune system sensitization. Proteins expressed in commercially available genetically modified crops are present at very low levels and are rapidly degraded.
+Dunn et al. (2017) analyzed 83 studies that compared genetically modified foods with their conventional counterparts to determine whether they were more allergenic. No studies in humans or animals were found showing that a genetically modified food is more allergenic than its conventional equivalent.
+GMO proponents note that because of the safety testing requirements, the risk of introducing a plant variety with a new allergen or toxin is much smaller than from traditional breeding processes, which do not require such tests. Genetic engineering can have less impact on the expression of genomes or on protein and metabolite levels than conventional breeding or (non-directed) plant mutagenesis. Toxicologists note that "conventional food is not risk-free; allergies occur with many known and even new conventional foods. For example, the kiwi fruit was introduced into the U.S. and the European markets in the 1960s with no known human allergies; however, today there are people allergic to this fruit."
+Genetic modification can also be used to remove allergens from foods, potentially reducing the risk of food allergies. A hypo-allergenic strain of soybean was tested in 2003 and shown to lack the major allergen that is found in the beans. A similar approach has been tried in ryegrass, which produces pollen that is a major cause of hay fever: here a fertile GM grass was produced that lacked the main pollen allergen, demonstrating that hypoallergenic grass is also possible.
+The development of genetically modified products found to cause allergic reactions has been halted by the companies developing them before they were brought to market. In the early 1990s, Pioneer Hi-Bred attempted to improve the nutrition content of soybeans intended for animal feed by adding a gene from the Brazil nut. Because they knew that people have allergies to nuts, Pioneer ran in vitro and skin prick allergy tests. The tests showed that the transgenic soy was allergenic. Pioneer Hi-Bred therefore discontinued further development. In 2005, a pest-resistant field pea developed by the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for use as a pasture crop was shown to cause an allergic reaction in mice. Work on this variety was immediately halted. These cases have been used as evidence that genetic modification can produce unexpected and dangerous changes in foods, and as evidence that safety tests effectively protect the food supply.
+During the Starlink corn recalls in 2000, a variety of GM maize containing the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) protein Cry9C, was found contaminating corn products in U.S. supermarkets and restaurants. It was also found in Japan and South Korea. Starlink corn had only been approved for animal feed as the Cry9C protein lasts longer in the digestive system than other Bt proteins raising concerns about its potential allergenicity. In 2000, Taco Bell-branded taco shells sold in supermarkets were found to contain Starlink, resulting in a recall of those products, and eventually led to the recall of over 300 products. Sales of StarLink seed were discontinued and the registration for the Starlink varieties was voluntarily withdrawn by Aventis in October 2000. Aid sent by the United Nations and the United States to Central African nations was also found to be contaminated with StarLink corn and the aid was rejected. The U.S. corn supply has been monitored for Starlink Bt proteins since 2001 and no positive samples have been found since 2004. In response, GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace set up the GM Contamination Register in 2005. During the recall, the United States Centers for Disease Control evaluated reports of allergic reactions to StarLink corn, and determined that no allergic reactions to the corn had occurred.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-7.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-7.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..e3c09a76f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-7.md
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 8/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Horizontal gene transfer ===
+Horizontal gene transfer is the movement of genes from one organism to another in a manner other than reproduction.
+The risk of horizontal gene transfer between GMO plants and animals is very low and in most cases is expected to be lower than background rates. Two studies on the possible effects of feeding animals with genetically modified food found no residues of recombinant DNA or novel proteins in any organ or tissue samples. Studies found DNA from the M13 virus, Green fluorescent protein and RuBisCO genes in the blood and tissue of animals, and in 2012, a paper suggested that a specific microRNA from rice could be found at very low quantities in human and animal serum. Other studies however, found no or negligible transfer of plant microRNAs into the blood of humans or any of three model organisms.
+Another concern is that the antibiotic resistance gene commonly used as a genetic marker in transgenic crops could be transferred to harmful bacteria, creating resistant superbugs. A 2004 study involving human volunteers examined whether the transgene from modified soy would transfer to bacteria that live in the human gut. As of 2012 it was the only human feeding study to have been conducted with GM food. The transgene was detected in three volunteers from a group of seven who had previously had their large intestines removed for medical reasons. As this gene transfer did not increase after the consumption of the modified soy, the researchers concluded that gene transfer did not occur. In volunteers with intact digestive tracts, the transgene did not survive. The antibiotic resistance genes used in genetic engineering are naturally found in many pathogens and antibiotics these genes confer resistance to are not widely prescribed.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-8.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-8.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..875e85583
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-8.md
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 9/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Animal feeding studies ===
+Reviews of animal feeding studies mostly found no effects. A 2014 review found that the performance of animals fed GM feed was similar to that of animals fed "isogenic non-GE crop lines". A 2012 review of 12 long-term studies and 12 multigenerational studies conducted by public research laboratories concluded that none had discovered any safety problems linked to consumption of GM food. A 2009 review by Magaña-Gómez found that although most studies concluded that modified foods do not differ in nutrition or cause toxic effects in animals, some did report adverse changes at a cellular level caused by specific modified foods. The review concluded that "More scientific effort and investigation is needed to ensure that consumption of GM foods is not likely to provoke any form of health problem". Dona and Arvanitoyannis' 2009 review concluded that "results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters". Reactions to this review in 2009 and 2010 noted that Dona and Arvanitoyannis had concentrated on articles with an anti-modification bias that were refuted in peer-reviewed articles elsewhere. Flachowsky concluded in a 2005 review that food with a one-gene modification were similar in nutrition and safety to non-modified foods, but he noted that food with multiple gene modifications would be more difficult to test and would require further animal studies. A 2004 review of animal feeding trials by Aumaitre and others found no differences among animals eating genetically modified plants.
+In 2007, Domingo's search of the PubMed database using 12 search terms indicated that the "number of references" on the safety of GM or transgenic crops was "surprisingly limited", and he questioned whether the safety of GM food had been demonstrated. The review also stated that its conclusions were in agreement with three earlier reviews. However, Vain found 692 research studies in 2007 that focused on GM crop and food safety and found increasing publication rates of such articles in recent years. Vain commented that the multidisciplinarian nature of GM research complicated the retrieval of studies based on it and required many search terms (he used more than 300) and multiple databases. Domingo and Bordonaba reviewed the literature again in 2011 and said that, although there had been a substantial increase in the number of studies since 2006, most were conducted by biotechnology companies "responsible of commercializing these GM plants." In 2016, Domingo published an updated analysis, and concluded that as of that time there were enough independent studies to establish that GM crops were not any more dangerous acutely than conventional foods, while still calling for more long-term studies.
+The study by Ricroch, Boisron, and Kuntz (2014) conducted a review of 90-day subchronic feeding studies using foods and feeds derived from genetically modified plants, aiming to assess the ability of these tests to detect adverse effects and their usefulness in the safety assessment process. In all cases considered valid under technical and regulatory criteria, none of the studies identified signs of toxicity, clinically relevant alterations, or unexpected effects attributable to the genetic modification. Nevertheless, the authors note a growing tendency, particularly in the European Union, to systematically require such tests even when existing analyses already demonstrate substantial equivalence, raising concerns about the overinterpretation of minor biological variations and the unnecessary use of animal studies.
+Giraldo et al. (2019) conclude that although most genetically modified crops are intended for animal feed, there is a significant lack of information and specific guidelines for the safety assessment of GM forages used exclusively as feed. The study argues that current regulatory frameworks, which were developed primarily for foods intended for human consumption, can be adapted for the assessment of forages, provided that differences in risk profiles and levels of animal exposure are taken into account. The authors further argue that the same methodological approaches used in the assessment of GM foods can be applied to feed, with appropriate technical adjustments, and conclude that adopting a new integrated risk assessment framework would make the process more efficient, reduce unnecessary evaluations, and potentially facilitate the commercialization of GM crops with associated benefits.
+Sánchez and Parrott (2017) argue that the 35 studies frequently cited as evidence of adverse effects of genetically modified foods and feeds account for less than 5% of the available literature on GMO safety and exhibit methodological flaws, such as the absence of verification of the actual transgenic content of the diets, lack of appropriate controls, and inadequate feed formulation. They also highlight that some reported negative effects were not specific to the transgene, such as immunogenic responses observed in both GM and non-GM varieties, and that certain studies could not be reproduced. In addition, they identify cases in which studies were presented in a selectively incomplete manner, creating the impression of nonexistent risks, or cited as evidence of harm despite the fact that their own authors did not find adverse effects. In a review published the same year, Panchin and Tuzhikov argue that several studies frequently cited as evidence of harm caused by GMOs exhibit major statistical flaws, particularly due to the failure to properly correct for the problem of multiple comparisons, which leads to false positives that cannot be distinguished from random chance. They further emphasize that many of these studies relied on small sample sizes, conducted numerous tests without predefined hypotheses, and selectively reported results, all of which increase the risk of erroneous conclusions. The authors state that conclusions about the safety of genetically modified crops should be drawn from "the totality of the evidence … instead of far-fetched evidence from single studies."
+A study that analyzed the gut microbiota and metabolite profiles in two generations of cynomolgus monkeys fed genetically modified maize found no significant differences in most biological indicators, and the minor variations observed did not affect physiological functions during the feeding period.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-9.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-9.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ad95b2137
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies-9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+---
+title: "Genetically modified food controversies"
+chunk: 10/21
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:47.717639+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Human studies ===
+While some groups and individuals have called for more human testing of GM food, multiple obstacles complicate such studies. The General Accounting Office (in a review of FDA procedures requested by Congress) and a working group of the Food and Agriculture and World Health organizations both said that long-term human studies of the effect of GM food are not feasible. The reasons included lack of a plausible hypothesis to test, lack of knowledge about the potential long-term effects of conventional foods, variability in the ways humans react to foods and that epidemiological studies were unlikely to differentiate modified from conventional foods, which come with their own suite of unhealthy characteristics.
+Additionally, ethical concerns guide human subject research. These mandate that each tested intervention must have a potential benefit for the human subjects, such as treatment for a disease or nutritional benefit (ruling out, e.g., human toxicity testing). Kimber claimed that the "ethical and technical constraints of conducting human trials, and the necessity of doing so, is a subject that requires considerable attention." Food with nutritional benefits may escape this objection. For example, GM rice has been tested for nutritional benefits, namely, increased levels of Vitamin A.
+
+=== Controversial studies ===
+
+==== Pusztai affair ====
+
+Árpád Pusztai published the first peer-reviewed paper to find negative effects from GM food consumption in 1999. Pusztai fed rats potatoes transformed with the Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA) gene from the Galanthus (snowdrop) plant, allowing the tuber to synthesise the GNA lectin protein. While some companies were considering growing GM crops expressing lectin, GNA was an unlikely candidate. Lectin is toxic, especially to gut epithelia. Pusztai reported significant differences in the thickness of the gut epithelium, but no differences in growth or immune system function.
+On June 22, 1998, an interview on Granada Television's current affairs programme World in Action, Pusztai said that rats fed on the potatoes had stunted growth and a repressed immune system. A media frenzy resulted. Pusztai was suspended from the Rowett Institute. Misconduct procedures were used to seize his data and ban him from speaking publicly. The Rowett Institute and the Royal Society reviewed his work and concluded that the data did not support his conclusions. The work was criticized on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet and that any rat fed only potatoes would suffer from protein deficiency. Pusztai responded by stating that all diets had the same protein and energy content and that the food intake of all rats was the same.
+
+==== Bt corn ====
+A 2011 study was the first to evaluate the correlation between maternal and fetal exposure to Bt toxin produced in GM maize and to determine exposure levels of the pesticides and their metabolites. It reported the presence of pesticides associated with the modified foods in women and in pregnant women's fetuses. The paper and related media reports were criticized for overstating the results. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) posted a direct response, saying that the suitability of the ELISA method for detecting the Cry1Ab protein was not validated and that no evidence showed that GM food was the protein's source. The organization also suggested that even had the protein been detected its source was more likely conventional or organic food.
+
+==== Séralini affair ====
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Superstition-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Superstition-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..efad42e9e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Superstition-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+---
+title: "Higher Superstition"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Superstition"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:48.871677+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science is a 1994 book about the philosophy of science by the biologist Paul R. Gross and the mathematician Norman Levitt.
+
+
+== Summary ==
+
+Levitt states he is a leftist trying to save the "academic left" from itself by exposing misuses and abuses of science to advance political goals.
+Topics discussed include: cultural constructivism or social constructivism, the strong programme, the science criticism of Stanley Aronowitz and Bruno Latour, post-modernism and deconstructionism and their influence on American academia, the science criticism of Andrew Ross, feminist science criticism, environmentalist science criticism and "apocalyptic naturism", Jeremy Rifkin's influential "pseudoscientific alarmism", attacks on medical research connected with AIDS activism and animal rights advocacy, and Afrocentrism. The book also questions human activity's relationship with climate change. The authors find it unfortunate that social scientists and literary critics often consider themselves qualified to criticize the natural sciences without learning much about them in detail, and worry about what would replace Enlightenment ideals of universalism and rationalism, and objective truths about the natural world as ascertained by a scientific methodology of repeatable experiments, if these were to be discredited, as many science critics in the humanities wish to do.
+
+
+== Reception and influence ==
+The book inspired the 1996 Sokal hoax, in which Alan Sokal published a bogus paper in Social Text, a postmodernist journal that did not peer-review submissions. Sokal stated in an interview that while he was initially skeptical about Higher Superstition, he concluded after reading the works Gross and Levitt criticized that they were describing them fairly in "about 80 percent of the cases".
+The book has been criticized by Historian of Science Norton Wise. In a review of the book for the History of Science journal Isis, he dismisses the authors critique as misunderstanding what postmodernism, feminist studies, and social constructivism entail. He regards their writings as an awkward attempt at portraying history of science as a complacent teleological story devoid of any cultural influence and states that the author's demands for people who study science to be competent in the natural sciences is understandable but odd, given their own incompetence in historical research and writing.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Science wars
+
+
+== Notes and references ==
+
+
+== Further reading ==
+Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994). ISBN 0-8018-5707-4
+The Editors of Lingua Franca eds., et al., The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000).  ISBN 0-8032-7995-7
+Noretta Koertge, ed., A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). ISBN 0-19-511726-3
+Paul R. Gross, Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis, The Flight from Science and Reason (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1997). ISBN 0-8018-5676-0
+James Robert Brown Who Rules in Science: An Opinionated Guide to the Wars (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2001). ISBN 0-674-00652-6
+Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999). ISBN 0-674-00412-4
+Norton Wise, "The Enemy Without. The Enemy Within: A Review of Gross and Levitt, Higher Superstition" Isis 87 (1996).
+
+
+== External links ==
+Higher Superstition – at books.google.com
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes–Wallis_controversy-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes–Wallis_controversy-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f554bea62
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes–Wallis_controversy-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+title: "Hobbes–Wallis controversy"
+chunk: 1/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes–Wallis_controversy"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:50.179873+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Hobbes–Wallis controversy was a polemic debate that continued from the mid-1650s well into the 1670s, between the philosopher Thomas Hobbes and the mathematician and clergyman John Wallis. It was sparked by De corpore, a philosophical work by Hobbes in the general area of physics. The book contained not only a theory of mathematics subordinating it to geometry and geometry to kinematics, but a claimed proof of the squaring of the circle by Hobbes. While Hobbes retracted this particular proof, he returned to the topic with other attempted proofs. A pamphleteering exchange continued for decades. It drew in the newly formed Royal Society, and its experimental philosophy to which Hobbes was (on principle) opposed.
+The sustained nature of the exchanges can be attributed to several strands of the intellectual situation of the time. In mathematics there were open issues, namely the priority (pedagogic, or theoretical) to be assigned to geometry and algebra; and the status of algebra itself, which (from an English standpoint) had been pulled together by the text of William Oughtred, as more than a collection of symbolic abbreviations. Socially, the formation of the group of Royal Society members, and the status of the publication Philosophical Transactions, was brought to a point as the quarrel proceeded, with Hobbes playing the outsider versus the self-selecting guild.
+Hobbes was an easy target, on the ground chosen by Wallis. The failure of his attempts to solve the impossible problems he set himself were inevitable, but he neither backed down completely, nor applied adequate self-criticism. And on the level of character, Wallis was as intransigent as Hobbes was dogmatic, and this inflicted damage on both of their reputations. Quentin Skinner writes: "There is no doubt that at the personal level Wallis behaved badly (as was widely conceded at the time)." The fact that Wallis was a Presbyterian, a university man, and an anti-Royalist during the civil war made him "three times an enemy to Hobbes", as Anthony Gottlieb points out in The Dream of Enlightenment.
+Part of the significance of the controversy is that Hobbes felt that, in the later stages, the Royal Society was in some way complicit in the attacks from Wallis, despite the fact that he had many friends as Fellows in it. This attitude presented one of the obstacles to Hobbes himself becoming a member, though not the only one.
+
+== Hobbes attacks the universities ==
+Hobbes in Leviathan (1651) joined others in attacks on the existing Oxbridge academic system, essentially a monopoly in England of university teaching. These attacks, especially that of John Webster in Examen academiarum, stung replies from Oxford professors. Wallis joined in, but the first wave of rebuttals came from other major names.
+The issue of the universities was heavily loaded at the time, and the orthodox Presbyterian minister Thomas Hall lined up with Vindiciae literarum (1654). He had been arguing since The Pulpit Guarded (1651) that university learning was the bastion of defence against proliferating unorthodoxy and heresy. Webster had put the other side of the argument, in The Saints Guide (1653), casting doubt on the need for a university-educated clergy.
+In 1654 Seth Ward (1617–1689), the Savilian Professor of Astronomy, replied in Vindiciae academiarum to the assaults. It was an anonymous publication of Ward and John Wilkins, but not intended to conceal its authorship (JohN WilkinS signed N.S. and SetH WarD signed H.D.). The agenda and tone for the controversy was first set by Ward when he launched a general attack on Hobbes. Wilkins wrote a preface to Vindiciae academiarum; the main text by Ward mentioned Hobbes, who was the particular target of an appendix. Ward claimed in both places that Hobbes had plagiarised Walter Warner. Before Leviathan, Wilkins certainly was not hostile to Hobbes, and in fact wrote a Latin poem for the 1650 Humane Nature; or the Fundamental Elements of Policy, an edition of part of the Elements of Law of Hobbes; and the preface to that book has been attributed to Ward. But the emergence of the full scope of the philosophy of Hobbes in Leviathan lost him allies who may have shared somewhat in his starting assumptions, but who felt a need to distance themselves from his conclusions, as Ward did in his Philosophicall Essay of 1652. Ward went on to make a full-dress attack on Hobbes the philosopher, the In Thomae Hobbii philosophiam exercitatio epistolica of 1656, dedicated to Wilkins.
+
+== Early controversy on mathematics ==
+Errors in De Corpore, in the mathematical sections, opened Hobbes to criticism also from John Wallis, Savilian Professor of Geometry.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes–Wallis_controversy-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes–Wallis_controversy-1.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..d9577bba2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes–Wallis_controversy-1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+---
+title: "Hobbes–Wallis controversy"
+chunk: 2/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes–Wallis_controversy"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:50.179873+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== The Elenchus ===
+Wallis's Elenchus geometriae Hobbianae, published in 1655, contained an elaborate criticism of Hobbes's attempt to put the foundations of mathematical science in its place within knowledge. Hobbes had limited his interest to geometry, restricting the scope of mathematics.
+The book was dedicated to John Owen, and in prefatory remarks Wallis (a Presbyterian) avows that his differences with Hobbes are largely rooted in theology. Hobbes himself wrote to Samuel de Sorbière in the same year, saying the controversy was not merely scientific. He regarded the use of infinite quantities as the thin end of the wedge for a return of scholasticism, and behind Wallis he saw "all the Ecclesiastics of England". Sorbière visited Wallis in Oxford; but his analysis of Wallis as stereotypical pedant helped not at all in the quarrel.
+Hobbes took care to remove some mistakes exposed by Wallis, before allowing an English translation of the De Corpore to appear in 1656. But he still attacked Wallis in a series of Six Lessons to the Professors of Mathematics, included with the De Corpore translation. Wallis defended himself, and re-confronted Hobbes with his mathematical inconsistencies. Hobbes responded with Marks of the Absurd Geometry, Rural Language, Scottish Church Politics, and Barbarisms of John Wallis, Professor of Geometry and Doctor of Divinity. It has been suggested that Hobbes was still trying to cultivate John Owen at this point: Owen was both the leading Independent theologian and Cromwell's choice as Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, and Hobbes softened his critical line on the universities while stoking up the quarrel with Wallis. Further, the religious dimension (Scottish Church Politics refers to the Presbyterianism of Wallis, not shared by Owen) has been seen as a presage of later analysis of Behemoth, the book Hobbes wrote in 1668 as a post-mortem on the English Revolution. The various thrusts were parried by Wallis in a reply (Hobbiani puncti dispunctio, 1657).
+
+=== Controversy over foundational matters ===
+Wallis published a comprehensive treatise on the general principles of calculus (Mathesis universalis, 1657). Here he strongly advocated giving priority to the approach through arithmetic and algebra. This was quite contrary to the arguments of both Hobbes and Isaac Barrow. Hobbes set store on the "demonstrable" status of geometry, in the Six Lessons. Jon Parkin writes:
+
+For Hobbes, his new form of geometrical demonstration was the finest example of what a nominalist science could achieve. It offered demonstrably certain knowledge. The creation and interaction of lines could clearly be conceived as a product of matter in motion, whose properties could be demonstrated with the highest level of certainty.[...] Wallis, by contrast was the foremost exponent of Cartesian analytical geometry.
+Mathematicians sympathetic to Hobbes included François du Verdus and François Pelau, and some of his works were later translated into English for pedagogic use by Venterus Mandey; but he was not backed up by a "school". On the other side as critics were Claude Mylon, Laurence Rooke, Viscount Brouncker, John Pell, Christiaan Huyghens; much of the criticism Hobbes received was by private correspondence, or in the case of Pell direct contact. Henry Stubbe, later a vehement critic of the Royal Society, assured Hobbes in 1657 he had some (unnamed) supporters in Oxford.
+Hobbes decided again to attack the new methods of mathematical analysis and by the spring of 1660, he had put his criticism and assertions into five dialogues under the title Examinatio et emendatio mathematicae hodiernae qualis explicatur in libris Johannis Wallisii, with a sixth dialogue so called, consisting almost entirely of seventy or more propositions on the circle and cycloid. Wallis, however, would not take the bait.
+
+=== Hobbes and duplicating the cube ===
+Hobbes then tried another tack, having solved, as he thought, another ancient problem, the duplication of the cube. He had his solution brought out anonymously in French, so as to put his critics off the scent. He slipped in algebraic terms in early efforts, by cubing √2 to the answer 2. While Hobbes would withdraw some arguments as erroneous, he distinguished between "errors of negligence" and "errors of principle", and found the latter much harder to admit. He was led to argue that the doctrine of nth roots in algebra (one contribution of Wallis) did not adequately model the geometric notions based on area and volume. René François Walter de Sluse walked through Hobbes's proof in one version, clearing the radicals to come down to a numerical assertion it implied (97,336 = 97,556), which could only be accepted as an approximation. Hobbes replied with an idiosyncratic appeal to a form of dimensional analysis, where algebraic quantities are non-dimensional. In general, his positions hardened after 1660.
+Wallis publicly refuted the solution, but Hobbes claimed the credit of it. He republished it (in modified form), with his remarks, at the end of the 1661 Dialogus Physicus.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes–Wallis_controversy-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes–Wallis_controversy-2.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..c471ba253
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes–Wallis_controversy-2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+title: "Hobbes–Wallis controversy"
+chunk: 3/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes–Wallis_controversy"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:50.179873+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== Second phase: the Dialogus physicus of 1661 ==
+The Dialogus physicus, sive De natura aeris attacked Robert Boyle and other friends of Wallis who were forming themselves into a society (incorporated as the Royal Society in 1662) for experimental research. The full Latin title of the book mentioned Gresham College as the experimental base of Boyle's group (see Gresham College and the formation of the Royal Society), followed immediately by a reference to the duplication of the cube, which in Hobbes's latest version was included as an appendix. Hobbes chose to take as the manifesto of the new academy Boyle's New Experiments touching the Spring of the Air (1660). Hobbes saw the whole approach as a direct contravention of the method of physical inquiry enjoined in the De Corpore. He had reasoned out his own conclusions years before from speculative principles, and he warned them that if they were not content to begin where he had left off, their work would come to naught. This attack from Hobbes was one of several at the time: other opponents of Boyle were Franciscus Linus and Henry More. The issues at stake now had broadened out, and this was a choice Hobbes made, with their implications reaching beyond those of the first phase.
+To Hobbes, Boyle replied himself, in the Examen of Mr T. Hobbes, which appeared as an appendix to a second edition (1662) of the New Experiments, along with an answer to Linus. But first Wallis was drawn in again, with the satire Hobbius heauton-timorumenos (1662). It included the accusation that Hobbes used purely verbal tactics, preferring his own semantics of a term such as "air", to cast doubt on the existence of a vacuum.
+Hobbes reacted to personal attack by keeping aloof from scientific controversy for some years. He did write a letter about himself in the third person, Considerations upon the Reputation, Loyalty, Manners and Religion of Thomas Hobbes's. In this biographical piece, he told his own and Wallis's "little stories during the time of the late rebellion". Wallis did not attempt a reply.
+
+== Hobbes and the Royal Society ==
+Hobbes never became a Fellow of the Royal Society, which was formally founded right at the time when the controversy drew in Boyle, and it has been debated why. Possible explanations are that he was difficult (cantankerous, even), and in other ways incompatible with the Society as club; or that the attacks by Wallis had successfully diminished his reputation, by showing that he was a lightweight in mathematics, part of a bigger polemic plan to show his thought generally as unoriginal, coming secondhand from others. Another simple explanation is that Hobbes was too "controversial" in the modern sense: he was excluded for reasons of image management.
+It is possible that Hobbes's objections to academia extended to the Society. John Aubrey reports that Hobbes thought he had a small group of enemies there. Wallis, Ward and Wilkins were indeed key members of the early Royal Society, having been in the precursor group ("Oxford Philosophical Club") in Oxford.
+Quentin Skinner therefore proposed, in a 1969 paper Hobbes and the politics of the early Royal Society, that small-group politics explained enough: those three kept Hobbes out of the Royal Society at the start; and that his continuing absence is sufficiently explained by Hobbes's resentment at such treatment. Certainly Hobbes took it badly that Wallis could use the Philosophical Transactions to publish his critical views, for example in a review of Hobbes's Rosetum geometricum, and complained about this in 1672 to Henry Oldenburg.
+Recent scholarly explanations are more complex. It is argued by Noel Malcolm that the general position of Hobbes, in 'mechanistic philosophy', was close enough to that current in the Royal Society to be compatible (even given the debate with Boyle), but that his reputation from the political and religious side made him untouchable, and the Society kept him at arm's length for that reason.
+
+== Later publications ==
+After a time Hobbes began a further period of controversial activity, which he dragged out until his ninetieth year. The first piece, published in 1666, De principiis et ratiocinatione geometrarum, was an attack on geometry professors. Three years later he brought his three mathematical achievements together in Quadratura circuli, Cubatio sphaerae, Duplicitio cubii, and as soon as they were once more refuted by Wallis, reprinted them with an answer to the objections. Wallis, who had promised to leave him alone, refuted him again before the year was out. The exchange dragged on through numerous other papers until 1678.
+
+== Timeline ==
+1650 Hobbes, Humane Nature; or the Fundamental Elements of Policy
+1651 Hobbes, Leviathan
+1652 Ward, A Philosophicall Essay towards an Eviction of the Being and Attributes of God
+1654 Webster, Academiarum examen
+1654 Ward and Wilkins, Vindiciae academiarum
+1655 Hobbes, De Corpore
+1655 Wallis, Elenchus geometriae Hobbianae
+1656 Hobbes, Six Lessons to the Professors of the Mathematics
+1656 Hobbes, De Corpore, English edition
+1656 Wallis, Due correction for Mr Hobbes
+1656 Ward, In Thomae Hobbii philosophiam exercitatio epistolica
+1657 Hobbes, Marks of the Absurd Geometry, Rural Language, Scottish Church Politics, and Barbarisms of John Wallis
+1657 Wallis, Hobbiani puncti dispunctio
+1657 Wallis, Mathesis universalis
+1660 Hobbes, Examinatio et emendatio mathematicae hodiernae qualis explicatur in libris Johannis Wallisii
+1660 Boyle, New Experiments touching the Spring of the Air
+1661 Hobbes, Dialogus physicus, sive De natura aeris
+1662 Wallis, Hobbius heauton-timorumenos
+1662 Boyle, An examen of Mr. T. Hobbes his Dialogus Physicus de Natura Aeris
+1662 Hobbes, Considerations upon the Reputation, Loyalty, Manners and Religion of Thomas Hobbes's
+1674 Boyle, Animadversions upon Mr. Hobbes's Problemata de Vacuo
+
+== References and notes ==
+
+== Further reading ==
+Helena Pycior, Mathematics and Philosophy: Wallis, Hobbes, Barrow, and Berkeley. Journal of the History of Ideas, 48, No. 2, (1987) pp. 265–286
+S. Probst, Infinity and creation: the origin of the controversy between Thomas Hobbes and the Savilian professors Seth Ward and John Wallis, British J. Hist. Sci. 26 (90, 3) (1993), 271-279.
+Alexander Bird, Squaring the Circle: Hobbes on Philosophy and Geometry, Journal of the History of Ideas - Volume 57, Number 2, April 1996, pp. 217–231
+Douglas M. Jesseph, The decline and fall of Hobbesian geometry, Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Volume 30, Issue 3, September 1999, Pages 425-453
+
+== External links ==
+John Wallis (1616-1703): Mathematician and Divine by Philip Beeley and Siegmund Probst; detailed references to many of the publications
+Attribution
+This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Hobbes, Thomas". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 13 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 545–552. (See pp. 549–550 for the Hobbes–Wallis controversy.)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Fillunger-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Fillunger-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f2114b00d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Fillunger-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+title: "Paul Fillunger"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Fillunger"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:17:43.387269+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Paul Fillunger (June 25, 1883 in Vienna – March 7, 1937 in Vienna) was an Austrian geotechnical engineer.
+Raised in a family of engineers, he studied at the Technische Hochschule in Vienna and took a position in the state-owned railway company in 1906. In 1908 he completed a PhD and then went to teach mathematics, machine industry and then mechanics at the University of Vienna.
+Fillunger pioneered the study of saturated ground and was made famous by an article published in 1913.
+He discovered the difference in behaviors of the effective and general stresses in samples of ground, opening the way for further research. He is considered to be a pioneer of the theory of liquid-saturated porous solids.
+Fillunger's theories put him in heated conflict with Karl von Terzaghi, who is often referred to as "father of soil mechanics", whom Fillunger was accused of slandering. The university blamed Fillunger, who then committed suicide by opening the gas jets in the bathroom with his wife.
+
+
+== References ==
+
+Reint Boer, The Engineer And The Scandal: A Piece Of Science History, Springer, 2005
+Paul Fillunger, "Erdbaumechanik?", Vienna, 1936
\ No newline at end of file