Talk:Edible

Untitled

This page needs to be added to and in a correct format. Jam 06:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Deserves it's own article.

I think that edibility deserves it's own article because it's more about cultural acceptance than just eating. e.g. Judaists believe that you should only eat kosher foods and, although consisting of seemingly inedible things, there are such things as blue cheese and Casu marzu.

This is separate from just the biological process of eating.

Edibility is to eating as script is to acting. Repku (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

   At the beginning of a good day, i might try to fully ameliorate (by using 5 distinct combinations of style-markup) the above less-than-completely signed "contribution" which is actually the sum and difference of 1 signed contrib and 4 unsigned ones by the same colleague; instead i note that the history page reflects

1. 4 unsigned self-edits following the sig above, 13, 19, 25 and 26 minutes later than the time in the sig, and
2. thus presumably the colleague's fully explored version of their intention.
   --Jerzy•t 23:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
   

   BTW, here's a working lk to Casu marzu (for whose coupling with the blue cheeses i note -- just for the record -- my very personal resentment: Ooohhk!).
--Jerzy•t 23:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

   I'd say we've established that Edibility is a tough article to write. I'm essaying a stub in the hope that it will be either marginally better than the "we need an article" notice, or a provocation that will make someone else (or even myself) do better.
--Jerzy•t 23:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Additions made

Enhanced the header text, added an image, and added one section: edible items in nature. Could definitely use more eyes on all. Another useful section would cover processed edible items (underwear, tableware, etc). Mozby (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Unsafe!

The current article is making a bold claim that any plant that goes through this checklist is "safe" to eat, and makes no references or remarks. It mentions it as a "survival skill" but that's it.

In fact, this method is a last-ditch survival effort when no "known" food is available and provides best-effort safety (as an alternative to starving). Definitely, among 400,000 plant species, there are those that will pass the test but kill you later. Death cap mushroom as one obvious example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPGremlin (talk • contribs) 15:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

A description of this method can be seen in an earlier version of the article: I've removed it now as it wasn't reliably sourced. – Uanfala (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit! The edibility test definitely should have been presented with more nuance, if at all. But I was curious about your reasoning for rating How Stuff Works as an unreliable source. I used it because I've often seen PBS cite is as a classroom resource, but its name is certainly not as authoritative-sounding as other sites. I ended up starting a thread about it on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, just to see what other editors think, and I'd love to hear your take if you're interested. Mozby (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

References