Talk:Bt cotton

Link should be removed

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947%7Caccessdate=27 The website has a lot of hits if I search for New world order, IMO this seriously disqualifies the wrongly named global research website as a source of factual information. Furthermore, quoted from website: The Global Research website was established on the 9th of September 2001, two days before the tragic events of September 11. Barely a few days later, Global Research had become a major news source on the New World Order and Washington’s “war on terrorism”. There are plenty legitimate reasons to doubt the usefulness/necessity of gmo's, there's no need to involve the obfuscating (and quite often non-fact based) anti-gmo lobby in it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.105.239.3 (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Bush talks about the New World Order and leaders such as Kissinger write books about it. It is not fringe, except to people who are illiterate or do not read public policy or geopolitics books. The New World Order (Novus ordo seclorum) is on the back of the dollar bill.

It is unhelpful to censor globalsearch.ca from the article. It is an aggregators for articles from PhDs, academics and investigative journalists studying globalization and is widely used in the intelligence community for open source intelligence gathering. You should examine the credentials of the individual author on the article, instead of criticizing the website.

Wikipedia is no longer useful as an objective source of information because it is excluding factual viewpoints for political reasons. This is another example of that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.50.246 (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Article outrageously pro-GMO

This article is outrageously and subtly pro Bt cotton. Many studies show the supposed advantages of the Bt cotton are illusory. Concerning the link between farmers suicides and Bt cotton introduction, other stories show evidence of a link between the introduction of Bt cotton and small farmer debts.

While there is a "Advantages" section, there is no "Disadvantages" section in this article, which shows the main author is biased.

Report from France 24 (in French): http://www.france24.com/fr/20130705-reporters-inde-ogm-monsanto-Maharastra-Mahyco-coton-agriculeurs-suicide-france24/

It also omits to mention that Maharashtra has finally banned Bt cotton, for its presumed links with farmer suicides: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Maharashtra-bans-Bt-cotton-seeds/articleshow/15420778.cms I have added this information - and hope it will stay in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwjohnson (talk • contribs) 21:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As of 22/04/2019, I also believe this article is still heavily biased towards supporting Bt Cotton / GM varieties. It also does not link to Monsanto in the opening description of Bt Cotton, nor clearly state the controversy of Indian farmer suicides (without simply negating them as unrelated). I suggest a moderator limits the IP addresses able to edit this article (none should be allowed from the St.Louis area (Monsanto's HQ), at least until such a time as this article becomes more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.182.228.250 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Species?

Is there a specific source species from which Bt cotton has been genetically modified, e.g. is it a modified form of Gossypium hirsutum? The article currently only says that it's a GMO variety of Gossypium, but that is an entire genus of plants. --Delirium (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)