GMOs - A Landscape of Misinformation - Topic Citations
Topic ID: 19
Every citation has two independent 0-100 scores. The source Reliability score rates the general reliability of the outlet itself, regardless of the specific claim, based on an eight-tier scale running from primary government and international scientific bodies (CDC, WHO, NASA, IPCC) at the top, through peer-reviewed journals, wire services, mainstream science journalism, and advocacy organizations, down to tertiary references like Wikipedia and unverifiable or absent sources at the bottom.
The Accuracy score, by contrast, rates how well a specific citation supports topic statements — a citation from an excellent source can score low if misapplied or can score high if it precisely backs up topic statements.
Humanitarian & Nutritional GMO Applications (Golden Rice)
- PMC (NIH)Reliability score: 88 | Accuracy score: 82
- PMC (NIH)Reliability score: 88 | Accuracy score: 82
- Encyclopaedia BritannicaReliability score: 68 | Accuracy score: 82
- Encyclopaedia BritannicaReliability score: 68 | Accuracy score: 82
Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety
- Cambridge Core (Politics and the Life Sciences)Reliability score: 84 | Accuracy score: 75
- Cambridge Core (Politics and the Life Sciences)Reliability score: 84 | Accuracy score: 75
- Science (AAAS)Reliability score: 95 | Accuracy score: 82
- Science (AAAS)Reliability score: 95 | Accuracy score: 82
Media Framing ("Frankenfoods" and Fear-Based Coverage)
- Taylor & Francis (peer-reviewed)Reliability score: 81 | Accuracy score: 75
- Taylor & Francis (peer-reviewed)Reliability score: 81 | Accuracy score: 75
- Genetic Literacy ProjectReliability score: 62 | Accuracy score: 75
- Genetic Literacy ProjectReliability score: 62 | Accuracy score: 75
Reduced Pesticide/Chemical Use from GMOs
- ITIF, summarizing the 2016 NASEM reportReliability score: 94 | Accuracy score: 82
- ITIF, summarizing the 2016 NASEM reportReliability score: 94 | Accuracy score: 82