Source for later
Get this stuff
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3uwt8w/whats_your_take_on_gmos/cxprp5o 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I attached two links that examine the research and conclusions of the IARC regarding glyphosate. Frankly, it is alarming how bad it is, and amazing how these professionals let this slip.
Should we elaborate on the IARC monograph in more detail and examine when and where it falls apart, as my two sources did? And if so, should a separate article be made for that, or just fit it all on this article? Feredir28 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Depends how much detail you want. If you're going for a side-by-side or something similar, make a new article; if you just want to summarize and then cite rebuttals, here fits. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think a side-by-side piece is necessary, unless anyone here insists on that option. The monograph is not long, but a brief general summary of each key points along with rebuttals should be enough IMO. I guess we can start there, and if this grows over time, then we can decide later what to do. Feredir28 (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)