Talk:Genetically modified food

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon science.svg

This Science related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Goldenbrain.png
Editorial notes
Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Organic food comparatively sucks[edit]

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/01/23/organic-yields-lag-conventional-20-developed-countries-43-africa-meta-analyses-finds/ FuzzyCatPotato of the Frisky Umbilical cords (talk/stalk) 23:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In other words[edit]

I have a fever. Let me enjoy the little things. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Not surprising. Organic foods typically have lower yields. I find it ironic that organic is hailed as "eco-friendly" but at the same time, its yields are worse and therefore require more developed land to be comparable to conventional. I do know there are good components and conventional farming isn't perfect, but reality ain't anything like the image the organic tryhard industry likes to conjure up. LEFTYGREENMARIO 03:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Kurzgesagt finally releases long-awaited video on GMOs[edit]

Guess if our GMO article is right and NaturalNews is wrong? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Percy Schmeiser[edit]

I do not find anything wrong with what Percy Schmeiser did; if an useful trait improves some of my plants, I shall select for the improved trait. ¿Why should Percy Schmeiser have to pay? The trait showed up in a small percentage of his crops and he selected it. He signed no contract with Monsanto If Monsanto did not want all rational farmers to select for RoundUp™-resistance, it should have made the crops sterile; by leaving the crops fertile, it guaranteed that all rational farmers would select their crops for RoundUp™-resistance. Those farmers did not steal from Monsanto; Monsanto gave them free pollen and they just selected the best offspring. — Unsigned, by: 76.102.233.65 / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

They would've, but terminator seed research was forced to be abandoned because of folks not unlike him. (registered user who forgot pass) 70.45.60.225 (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Better get your propaganda in line[edit]

Media Bias/Fact Check lists CounterPunch as a site with high factual accuracy despite its articles detailing pro-GMO propaganda in collusion with the US federal government? What is this crap. Unacceptable

And again, Media Bias/Fact Check rates The Nation as having high factual accuracy even as it states that "The case against GMOs has strengthened steadily over the last few years." I can't believe it. So many holes to poke in your propaganda; it's almost like it's a precarious piecemeal attempt to hide the truth from the American public. — Unsigned, by: JustOwnedYouSon / talk / contribs 11:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Errrr. Sorry? Your point is just a little difficult to follow.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Bob M You'll need to look at JustOwnedYouSon's contributions and read their talk page to get some context. In short, JustOwnedYouSon believes RationalWiki is part of a "propaganda network" to defend GMO/vaccine corporations. JustOwnedYouSon has also suggested that Media Bias/Fact Check is a "propaganda front group". CowHouse (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for the suggestion. But quite honestly I'm not really inclined to review a user's wiki contribution history in order to understand a single weird post. If he writes something it should make sense by itself. But thank again for trying to get me up to speed.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that you should look at their contributions. I only meant that it was necessary in order to understand the comment. I agree that the comment should stand on its own and I don't expect you to look at their contribution history. CowHouse (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I fully understand you were being helpful, and I'm really sorry if I seemed brusque.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
No need to apologise. You said thanks twice so I didn't think you were being brusque. I just wanted to clarify what I meant since it was ambiguous. CowHouse (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Fuck this, let's mongoose![edit]

If you search for "Gef", as in Gef the talking mongoose, you wind up here. Should there be some kind of cross-reference or hatnote at the top for people who actually want a talking mongoose? Or should Gef redirect to the mongoose rather than here? Or should there be a disambiguation page? What do you want when you type "Gef"? --Annanoon (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Annanoon God Enhanced Flavor? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Study on attitudes on GMF[edit]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0520-3

Basically, opponents of GMF greatly over-estimate their knowledge on the field. Really, just Dunning Kruger, but still worth incorporating in this article. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)