Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 24 May 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

(sticky) Nomination for a silver brain

As the headline would suggest, I believe this article should be nominated for a silver brain. It follows the form, is low on snark (an acceptable RW amount, I would wager), and has over 70 citations. NerdyWizard^{you believed that why?} 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not. It's hideous. It's dripping with sarcasm and the first line that brings up the subject of GMO controversy instantly dismisses it. Any casual reader who is interested in the debate will see, even in the intro, that the article is apologist and will therefore dismiss it and possibly the rest of this site with it. It's embarrassing.

For whatever reason, GMO is controversial. Comparing GMO sceptics to AGW sceptics is going to be an instant turn off to anybody who is not an expert but who is looking for a rational take.

For this article to even approach nomination, it needs to be completely re-written. It needs a neutral lede, a side-by-side breakdown of the criticisms and concerns, and criticisms of the players in the business and their methods should be allowed to stand if they are valid - even if, as some editors here insist, that dropping chemicals into rivers is old history and nothing to do with GMO anyway and they should be sainted, Amen.

Accusations that some editors are no more than thinly disguised GMO shills has been a recurring theme on this site across various pages for a while now. Not so much by drive-by BoNs either, but by long-standing members of the community. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So we've got one ideologically biased no. Anyone else? NerdyWizard^{you believed that why?} 22:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ideologically biased no? Don't be a pillock. It's got fuck all to do with ideology, except that I ideologically object to shit articles. You want to level those accusations at the drive-by organic farmers and so on, fine. My criticisms are based on the content of the article, its dismissive tone, and the likelihood of it being ignored as a serious piece. A good article can be found at the other wiki. Read it - you might learn something. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

ANYONE ELSE?!?! NerdyWizard^{you believed that why?} 23:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha! Touché! Ajkgordon (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been avoiding this article as, at one time, I thought it was full of anti-science scare myths and I didn't want to get dragged into long debates. It's certainly much better in its current pro-science incarnation. Silver? Why not?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 08:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think this article has improved and accurately reflects the state of scientific consensus. The snark could be dialed up a little if you ask me. I think this is worth silver rating (although the number of citations has no impact on what rating an article should receive). For improvement I think there could be an exploration of the ethical implications of terminator seeds and owning patents on genetic material, which I think is much less clear cut. Tielec01 (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Weren't my edits upping the snark NerdyWizard? God knows the farcical and suicidal "regulations" of the FDA and EPA etc. give ammunition for it, so why are you removing my edits? SuperInfinity (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about the silver nomination and ways to improve the article in this thread. Want to start a conversation about why you think FDA and EPA regulations are "farcical and suicidal", do it in a new thread. I'm all ears. NerdyWizard (talk) ^{you believed that why?} 22:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, this is the sort of stance that a rational non-expert person takes on GMO. Advocacy of the benefits, admission of the problems, exposure of the scare-mongering - you know, a nuanced look at a complex issue, not black and white. The writers here could learn a lot from that and improve the article dramatically. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit War

What are your reasons for reverting the edits by Gh1900? I have further researched it and it seems there are numerous sources, but as we know the anti-GMO craze is a large group. They seem like scientific studies suggesting at least some links. Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

His first study has 16 (!) rebuttals on rbutr (which, in turn, link to scientific literature). His second was retracted by the source journal. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I thoroughly recant my previous statements. Never mind. There are no links. Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Cover story (sticky)

It's pretty good. What else does it need for gold? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The part on testing and regulations only explains the situation in the US. It would be useful to include information on how the rest of the world allows new GMF strains. M the T (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"Random"

This page writes:

For example, an artificial combination of genes that includes a gene to produce the pesticide Cry1Ab protein (commonly known as Bt toxin), originally found in Bacillus thuringiensis, is inserted in to the DNA of corn randomly. Both the location of the transferred gene sequence in the corn DNA and the consequences of the insertion differ with each insertion.

Is this correct? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 01:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reorganized

I rewrote some of the lede and shunted material around. I think it's clearer; did I screw anything up, or was it all a bad idea? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate map on GMOs.

I think that the map is highly deceptive and should be removed.

I live in Ireland. I have never even seen a GMF, nevermind eaten one. They are not allowed to be sold in the shops here and not anywhere in the EU without a label. This is not the picture of GMOs conveyed in the diagram.

In fact the US is the only first world country to allow widespread GMOs in the market, and it has been criticized by many EU countries and other ones around the world for its risky behaviour when it comes to human and environmental health. SuperInfinity (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds more like protectionism based on false pretenses and plain ol Green neo-luddism.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't talk about what it "sounds like" or make ad hominem accusations. I'm stating the reality backed up by facts. SuperInfinity (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't use ad hom, while you just peddled Green propaganda about GMO being "risky"..--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, GMF is safer than traditional breeding methods, since 1) only one gene/trait is altered at a time and 2) actual tests need to be done first. Keep in mind that when a plant breeds in the wild, mutations and such cause several alterations from the parents. CorruptUser (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Guys, I appreciate that this has primed your all-encompassing GMO responses. However I suggest that for now we stick at the subject of this thread. That is that the map is clearly not an accurate or informative description of the status of the legalities of GMOs across the world. SuperInfinity (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The map should stay, but it should be indicated that green color indicates that GMO food is in principle allowed to be sold and that there is a legal framework in place for new approvals. The purpose of the map is to counter the claim that GMOs are legally banned in many countries, which is not true. As for Ireland - GMO foods may not be popular in stores, but there is definitely no ban on selling them. It's just that producers have given up on fighting with a public heavily misinformed by powerful pseudoscientific organizations such as Greenpeace and Soil Association. However, I guarantee that you can easily buy GMO animal feed and that it is widely used. --Tweenk (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Salmon

Why do we believe that AquaAdvantage requires USDA and EPA (?!?) approvals? Hipocrite (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Title change?

It might be better to rename this page "Genetically modified organisms" because there are some related issues worth discussing regarding non-food GMOs, especially with regard to gene drives made using the tool CRISPR/Cas 9.[1] Bongolian (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be for it. Give it a day? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops

The study cited after the article makes the claim, "Scientific consensus says very clearly that GMF is safe and beneficial for farmers and consumers alike" only concludes that "the average agronomic and economic benefits of GM crops are large and significant", and doesn't mention the health impact of GM foods on consumers, while the claim in article seems to imply that it does. I may be mistaken, but I'd like to bring this to attention. Converted From Conservatism ^{There is no god but Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.} 20:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

From the introduction of the same document: "Numerous independent science academies and regulatory bodies have reviewed the evidence about risks, concluding that commercialized GM crops are safe for human consumption and the environment." Just a little bit after your quote about the "large and significant" benefits.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Well damn, I didn't even look there. I actually got that quote from the conclusion rather than the introduction, which is where your quote is from. Would it be better to instead cite the studies that it cites after it makes that claim? Converted From Conservatism ^{There is no god but Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.} 15:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Genetically modified microbes

Few people know that microbes are routinely genetically modified to make them produce enzymes, aromas or even medicine. Do we have a article on that? Pizzameister (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is the Bioscience Resource Project?

So this edit introduced a voice against GMOs about which I had never heard. I am 90% sure they are cranks, but even if they are, we should mention and debunk their claims, shouldn't we? And if they aren't cranks, well... Pizzameister (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

One second on Google would have revealed this to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioscience_Resource_Project A blog from a scientist of that institute: http://inthesetimes.com/rural-america/entry/18359/cooking-the-books-and-eating-the-research-a-scientist-explains-the-dangers . Now try to debunk it, I'll be waiting.--85.180.209.113 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If you call your blog "independent science news" something smells decidedly fishy to me... Pizzameister (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW: They publish in peer-reviewed journals.--85.180.209.113 (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course they do. And they have been trying to control the content of the WP article. ħuman 05:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And copying their propaganda here while swearing over it not really having sources on WP is pretty funny, 85! ħuman 05:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed - the WP page has a warning banner about impartiality and the talk page has complaints about "whitewashing". So it's not really convincing as an unbiased source.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And? Let's try to debunk them, still waiting. They published everything on their site. Who cares about some errors on their Wikipedia page? Didn't know that Wikipedia was a source of creating knowledge, like they do. Typical RationalWiki crap.--85.180.181.165 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

But .... you were the one who offered Wikipedia as a reference! Not "Rationalwiki".--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Just putting this here

https://www.reddit.com/r/european/comments/4hl3yn/ttip_united_states_blackmailing_eu_to_accept/d2r4yel some good links FuzzyCatPotato of the Frisky Noseblowers (talk/stalk) 01:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Just dropping this here

http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01.png http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_2015-01-29_science-and-society-03-01.png http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-02.png αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Breaking pages off

It's really large -- possibly too large to be useful. Breaking off pages (eg, Indian farmer suicide) could be useful if people wanna use RW as a takedown. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

We could create a page on specific genetic modifications like "terminator seeds".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 13:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is the scientific consensus?

According to this paper, there is no scientific consensus: http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1 This section should be changed.--78.51.225.195 (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh look, the journal that republished Séralini's bullshit. Also I see the esteemed scientist Vandana Shiva is one of the named authors (that was sarcasm, if you can't tell). --Ymir (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Come on, you can't just handwave away all the science you don't like. That's committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy with science. Maybe you think it's bullshit, maybe you see it as being deeply flawed, but you can't deny it exists and say "the scientific consensus". SuperInfinity (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Except Vandana was never a scientist to begin with. "No true Scotsman" only applies when the person is actually from Scotland. CorruptUser (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure?

Shiva studied physics at Panjab University in Chandigarh, graduating as a bachelor of science in 1972 and a master of science in 1974.[8] After that she worked, briefly, at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre before moving to Canada to pursue an M.A. in the philosophy of science at the University of Guelph (Ontario) in 1977, with a thesis entitled "Changes in the concept of periodicity of light".[8][9] In 1978, she completed and received her PhD in philosophy at the University of Western Ontario,[10] focusing on philosophy of physics. Her dissertation was titled "Hidden variables and locality in quantum theory," in which she discussed the mathematical and philosophical implications of hidden variable theories that fall outside of the purview of Bell's theorem.[11] She later went on to interdisciplinary research in science, technology, and environmental policy at the Indian Institute of Science and the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore.[7]

When you include getting published scientific journals and doing professional conservation work (at least) she sounds like enough of a scientist to me.

Just because in your bubble here the mention of Vandava Shiva and Seralini cause a pavlovian reaction of mockery you shouldn't expect everyone else feels this way. If the worst criticisms against people like Vandava Shiva and Seralini are "they are very much against GMOs" then you have failed to discredit these people in any way.

Don't you realize the circular nature of dismissing anti-GMO arguments because they're made of people who you don't like and have "discredited" because they previously have been against GMOs? Again, we're not even arguing about the pros or cons of GMOs here, just whether or not there is a "scientific consensus". SuperInfinity (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine, she had done research, I stand corrected even if what she did was very minimal before going into philosophy and doing a bunch of quantum woo bullshit. Doesn't mean she's right. CorruptUser (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

New York Times investigation

• Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops

Not going to pretend to be an expert in the area of GMOs, but how much does the above change the content of this article? – AOAPJM ^(talk) 14:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Anti-GMF predominantly liberal?

I don't think this claim is justified. The citation is correct in linking environmentalism and anti-GMO sentiment, but in my experience of food-woo it's pretty apolitical. I don't know what it's like in the US, but here in Australia there's a lot of bipartisan opposition for fear of transgene-escape/biodiversity. There's definitely hardcore woo-meisters on both sides though, even our resident white-nationalist-climate-change-is-a-NASA-hoax party is anti-GMO. MVHVTMV (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

While it would be interesting to find numbers on this, my impression is that it's predominantly a concern fueled by the "hard greens", and they largely identify to the political left (as wide as that is). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

and here's some hard numbers. Tacitly supports the notions that conservatives are less GMO-friendly, but with the giant caveat that the question they asked is whether the respondents "trusted scientists" about GMOs, and many anti-GMO liberals might believe GMOs are disliked by scientists. And maybe the question ordering priming a "trust scientists" response. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind that bit about ordering. Turns out the paper says they controlled for that. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

That study is interesting, but you'right it probably doesn't say anything definitive either way. It seems to just show a general liberal slant towards the idea of science, but doesn't actually ask any meaningful questions on personal stance. Plenty of cranks call themselves pro-science regardless of how they treat it. I'd be happy to leave it there if there was some actual numbers backing it up, but as it stands it just seems like a "common-sense" preconception.

I don't want to No True Scotsman here, but I don't see it as a particularly "liberal" concept (to be honest, I still don't fully understand the concept of a liberal in the American sense, it seems more of a broad snarl than an identifiable position). If there aren't any objections I'll remove it, the Positions on GMO section gives a much better view anyway. MVHVTMV (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of citing studies, VoF actually performed a study of the possible relationship between various crank positions and adherence to political ideology. Historically, Sweden has been the basis for much international statistics (we have a great basis for statistics, we collect statistics well, and we have competent statisticians), and we have a range of political beliefs represented in our multi-party system. Check out the study here. In it, it appears to show that women worry more than men about GMO's specifically, that all ages worry about the same about GMO's, and that political greens/environmentalists are much more worried about GMO's than the rest of the political spectrum — though, social democrats and communists scored between the other parties and the greens in terms of worry. The statement posed was "GMO food is a health hazard", to which agreement was measured. I was planning to post this study way sooner on RW, but my ADHD got in the way. Please consult it, anyhow! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I know how you feel mate. I was diagnosed with ADHD-PI last year, I never really understood it for the first 20-odd years of my life, but it explained a lot. It makes editing these articles way harder than it probably should be.

Anyway, that study is good stuff! It's hard to tell exactly how to parse the results though, just because I don't know how cultural differences affect it. We don't really have much of a hard green movement here and the "Australian Greens" are relatively centre-left social democrats. There are a few moonbats, but most of the conspiracy theorists seem to stick to the single-issue parties. I rewrote the second paragraph in the article to make it a bit easier to read and left out the bit about liberals, but it makes sense to add in something about the data on hard greens in that study. The idea that 1 in 5 Swedish Green's party supporters thinking the moonlanding was a hoax just seems totally baffling to me. MVHVTMV (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear you've been diagnosed, fellow passenger to operator of an ADHD-riddled brain! I have ADHD-C, myself. Diagnosed at 24 years of age, turns out it's been rampant since early childhood. Most important twist in my life (thus far) was to realize it all, actually. Owning up to the realities of my diagnosis has set me on a path out of the proverbial gutter, which obviously feels great. The worst is when people go undiagnosed, sometimes all their life, and so much misery comes from it... Never mind the self-medication that (statistically) almost always takes the place of a proper medical regime.

Regardless; I think my ADHD actually makes it easier for me to edit the site. Not in the structured sense, or the sense where I get stuff done, or any such sense... Uh... But more, like; in the sense that I manage to make a decent amount of useful contributions when I'm in hyperfocus on the site. Which is always hard work, though it makes me proud (and lots of unsung heroes do incredible things for the site too, of course! Kudos to you all!).

Regarding Sweden, we're a peculiar bunch (don't miss it!)... I hope that maybe reading here could be of some help? All in all, we're not that different, though — just another congregation of human beings ticking along in a society which, perhaps most uniquely, happens to work pretty darn well for the most part (knock on wood!). And, speaking of Australia — here's a thing.

I should probably also add that the Swedish greens are pretty over the top... They seem to be attracting the Swedish equivalent of the Jill Stein-type voters. Admittedly much milder than their American counterparts, but regardless — I hold my nose, thusly! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

More data

2015 survey: No political alignment about the issue. Just... absent to any degree of statistical significance. Just lookit them crosstabs. Pesticides? That's a liberal/conservative issue. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this might make a better article on its own: political views and pseudoscience or something. Ya feel? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, no. That'd be a clusterfuck of every single political viewpoint that sounds even a little wooish. I'm just following up on the specific contention of this article that it's a left-leaning viewpoint to oppose GMOs. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Excellent sources to mine

I've been wanting to mine these two Skeptoid podcasts/articles for ages now, but haven't gotten around to it. Float onward, brave flask post! To whomever it may concern! Mine, mine, for Goatness' sake, mine! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The moon is a space ship! WAKE UP!

No scientific consensus: http://www.ensser.org/media/0115/. This article is vastly flawed. Like the Penn & Tiller show it cites at the beginning, it uses vast amounts of disinfo couched in valid information to pummel the reader into accepting its conclusions via Trojan disinfo horse. It is too big and too obviously partial. For anyone who wants another perspective here is a link: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/02/an-essential-citizens-guide-to-the-truth-about-gm-crops-and-food/. This book is equally partial but is very well-sourced and will allow a more balanced view than that gleaned from specious corporate PR.--50.101.233.164 (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Colin Todhunter is the author behind the article you link. He's written troves of anti-GMO screeching. Fun facts include:

• He uses the expression "wake up" unironically ([2])
• He constantly links to globalresearch.ca to back up his outlandish claims ([3])
• He overtly claims that Jewish bankers are behind the clandestine NWO GMO takeover and mass poisoning of village wells, by Jewry ([4]).

122.164.233.169 (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Aah, the best type of radical leftist — so deep in the fringe that you don't even notice that you've begun merging with the Alt-right. That's wonderful of you, to have to done so. Congratulations. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, just regarding counterpunch.org generally, don't miss their excellent editorial content on the vaccine conspiracy, the New World Order, the Illuminati and their fine selection of articles on literal holocaust denial.

I'm sure you think you're a genius for sidestepping the corporate media brainwashing and getting just "the truth" from your alternative media outlet. I wonder why so few people seem to have figured that clever anti-disinformation strategy out by now.

Here's my prognosis: you're an idiot for reading counterpunch — and if you're not, you'll demonstrate that by unbookmarking that hippie InfoWars knockoff this very moment. I'd pray for your soul, but I'm an Atheist, so... here's a good old College "Good luck!" instead. You'll need it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the third bullet point above, show where Colin Todhunter says any of those things. He does not say them in the Counterpunch article linked to, and after searching extensively, I do not see him make these claims elsewhere. Hiding behind anonymity while making false accusations is not what RationalWiki should be about. Moreover, deliberately attacking a person's reputation in this way is libelous. In general, the overall tone of this entry is immature and inflammatory and is based on unsubstantiated personal opinion. While criticising certain websites, reports and positions on GM food is valid and certainly welcome, there should be no place on RationalWiki for calling people idiots, implying they are hippies and offering to pray for them. Nor should there be a place for pushing a personal agenda against people or sites. RationalWiki needs to apply some quality control here. The author merely relies on rhetorical devices and throws accusations around by saying certain things are Trojan horse disinformation, that they pummel readers into acceptance, are vastly flawed and comprise anti-GMO screeching, without even attempting to verify such claims. Merely claiming something is true does not automatically make it true. The general tone continues elsewhere with the titles "The moon is a spaceship" and "Organic food comparatively sucks" as well as the posting of a video under that section which has no place in any serious discussion of the issue at hand. 122.164.233.169 (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Organic food comparatively sucks

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

In other words

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

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

Percy Schmeiser

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: 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

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)