Talk:Genetically modified food controversies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
It's more clear to readers if we reserve the work risk for potential dangers of deploying GM food - rather than referring to the health "risk" of delaying deployment. Everyone knows that millions of people die each year from starvation.
Also, let's copy the outline of risks and benefits from Talk:Genetically modified food.
If other people help, I know this spin-off is a good idea. Otherwise, I'm going to mave ve-ry slow-ly on this. --Uncle Ed 02:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Taxobox
Can we make a taxobox to group the articles? I'm thinking of these as the main three:
- Genetic modification Redirects to Genetic engineering
- Genetically modified crops Redirects to Genetically modified organism
- Genetically modified food "Frankenfood"
- GM food controversy
There may be more. Writers need to be aware of the division, especially when trying to do a merge (or when moving sections). --Uncle Ed 13:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
I was wondering, where did all the sources go? There area bunch of notes, but they don't refer to anything. Weezcake 04:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
They're back Matt Yohe (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] French video
See [1], it's in French. Other than that very informative. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Paul Lewis
At the moment, Paul Lewis in the article doesn't point to the right Paul Lewis. Either remove the link or correct it? Capuchin 10:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Paul Lewis (professor) ; freshly written. `'Míkka 22:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bias
This article does seem a bit biased in favor of Genetic Modification, almost as if the contoversy is that scientists have the audacity to question the agribusinesses' statements on the safety of GMO products, not the very relevent health issues regarding their products. It'd be nice to see more information on Árpád Pusztai's findings that were published in a 1999 article in the Lancet, and a more neutral tone overall Evets70 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This article is absolutely irritating.
From one paragraph to the next, I seem to be reading an article written by pro Gm then anti GM supporters arguing with each other. Sort of like “Yeah, but… no but, yeah but”. Another example where the Wikipedia project is useless when it comes down to controversy, politics or religion. Does anyone else get sick of attempts of subtle coercion by editors with their own narrow agenda to spout? I don't believe in it, but take a look at the Creationism article for instance. Lots of 'I must have the last word' rubbish throughout each section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Gibbon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Really? There's a "benefits and controversies" section on the main GM foods page that links here, but I don't see a single direct mention of a benefit of GM foods. 76.64.187.201 04:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
No do you know whats completely useless...a bias article. Wiki-articles on controversy, politics, or religion should be like arguing because there is no correct answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrodsp (talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism and legal action
Many questions and controversies have obviously surrounded the GM food technology. However, it is merely a matter of a personal choice - should we be involved in genetically modifying foods is not the question we should ask. Instead, just simply do not eat it! I have heard many accounts of vandalism against food that has been modified through biotechnology. Are they justified in their beleifs? No! They are not justified because there are many advantages to biotchenologically modified food which can benefit society. If they disagree with it, they simply should not eat it. Another thing that I've been hearing lately is the attempted legal means of ridding GM foods. Once again, legal means against the development of biotechnology-modified foods should not be taken because the advantages of GM foods outweigh the disadvantages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesguy45 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bias (2)
Lets face it, only 2% of Britains are fully happy to eat GM crops (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3134278.stm. Last updated September 24th 2003). So surely the article needs to be slightly bias against GM crops to reflect this, not for it?! And maybe a conclusion is needed, or its far too hard to understand all the arguments for and against... And about the mention of more on Árpád Pusztai's results? Well, I read through the article myself and just found it to be incredibly irritating as I don't know what to make of it. Theres also no real conclusion for it, and especially for using it as a reference it's useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.90.220 (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia not an opinon poll. Why on earth would the results of an opinon poll influence and encylopedia article? Ttguy (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- The link to the study is dead, so I'm not sure on methods. Public surveys (or any science, for that matter) are worthless spin-bait without knowing how they were conducted. If it was a write-in campaign, for example, most of the people who would participate are those with strong opinions, and most people who oppose GM crops are firmly motivated against them, while most who do not oppose simply don't see what the fuss is about and aren't going to be motivated to send in a letter. Just reading the article (especially the "bullet point" summary), I have some suspicions about how impartial it is. " The more people engage in GM issues, the harder their attitudes and more intense their concerns" point contradicts the main body of the piece, which states that people are initially skeptical but less hostile with further explanation.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bias (3)
This article is about as biased as it gets – and I only read the intro. Firstly, it bores people with statistics about how many industry-financed studies have failed to find evidence that GM foods are harmful, when such studies can’t be trusted anyway. Secondly it has got the cheek to mention the emotive subject of blindness. A GM cure of blindness is a pipe-dream proposed for no other reason than to produce good headlines, Vitamin A pills are a much more cost-effective solution to this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.106.247 (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well you tend to get this sort of bias when you have a policy of only allowing stuff on the Wiki that has a reliable source to back it up. You tend to find that when someone puts up some negative story about GM they can not find a reliable source to back it up and so it tends to get knocked down. Ttguy (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- As to vitamin pills being cheaper than GM rice... I dont have the exact figures but what I do know - GM rice - free. Pills not Free. So I dunno about you but I think this puts GM rice as more cost effective.Ttguy (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Really. That's a pretty flagrant opinion there. 2nd sentence anti. 3rd sentence pro. 4th sentence anti. 5 sentence pro. And that's in the intro. I don't know how much more neutral you can get there but if you think so highly of NPOV then fix it. --GParan (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably one of the most biased article i've read on wiki. Show yourself, GM enthusiast! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.224.54 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Remember, bias works both ways. Don't act so disgusted that someone could possibly be in favour GM foods when neutrality is all about giving both sides equal footing. Rigourous scientific studies remain the only way to solve this sort of problem. Perhaps the reason the article appears biased is because scientific evidence does actually point towards GM foods as safe. I have never written or researched on the subject, so i do not know. But I do know that it's easy for scientists, fanatics and scaremongerers alike to start mudslinging before anyone has given the problem real scrutiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcolla (talk • contribs) 14:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- The question becomes: do we write an article that "teaches the controversy" (loaded language intentional) or that is limited to a list of facts from appropriate and verifiable sources without any cohesion? This article will be contentious either way. Somedumbyankee (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dead Sheep?
Can someone dig through this article(http://www.psrast.org/btkillssheep.htm) or possibly find a better one to have more information on this topic (if it is deemed important)?
- The article doesn't refer out. A google search (April 2006 cotton andhra pradesh) doesn't turn up any mainstream news, just sites carrying the same story. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MDSGBTC.php is the release from the original source and should be the one cited, psrast.org looks kind of dubious (the awards they have are from defunct or dying organizations). A link from a link in the Google search leads to http://www.financialexpress.com/old/fe_full_story.php?content_id=125649 Is a story in May '06 about Indian cotton production and it doesn't mention the dead sheep, but does mention that the crop was a massive economic failure. http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2662 appears to be a rebuttal (talks about cattle, not sheep). http://www.socialsciences.cornell.edu/0609/Contentious_Knowledge_kickoff.pdf is a powerpoint presentation that I wish I could hear the talk on, since it seems very appropriate to this conversation, but pages 17-30 seem to include more background on the framing story in India as far as the economic viability.Somedumbyankee (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
