We recently began work on a global independent directory of ecolabels ( http://www.ecolabelling.org). With editorial permission, we would like to add the link: http://ecolabelling.org/type/food/ with text: Food ecolabels at ecolabelling.org to the Organic wikipedia page. We currently list 61 labels from around the world. Please feel free to drop us a line at info@ecolabelling.org if you have any questions.
The section dealing with critiques of organic food fails to include a rather weighty argument...proponents of organic food say that it is better for the environment because harmful pesticides aren't used. however, the question of what is best for the environment is open for debate. Surely, chemicals and pesticides are bad for the environment, but pesticide use has allowed the crop per acre harvest to grow three to four times over the past fifty years. If everything was grown organically, farm area would need to be increased drastically, and that would mean less room for the rainforests, etc... The economist had a good article on this last month, if someone wants to cite all of this and work it out further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.168.30.130 ( talk) 04:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
QAI logo and reference should be removed, as it promotes single for-profit company, and added to a list of current accredited certifying agents. Berimbau1 23:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
this is from the criticism section: Toxicity of "organic pesticides": Conventional pesticides must be thoroughly studied before they can be placed on the market. However, such studies are not required for the pesticides used in organic agriculture [citation needed]. For example, the botanical pesticide Sabadilla is highly toxic to honeybees, and according to the California Department of Environmental Protection its mammalian toxicology has not been fully studied
i think it is an important point, only i am not sure if it is true, i point a citation needed in some time ago. soon i will just delete this statement. if someone finds references, she can put it back.. trueblood 11:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I realize that wikipedia is not a collection of links, but users might like to know where to buy organic foods and other such products. I have found a reputable dealer online that I think we should add to the links section. http://www.shopnatural.com
This is similar to already listed OmOrganics, but not limited to the Bay Area. The site has a grass-roots aspect to is as well. In addition to the base collection of listings, people list their favorite local place that sells or serves organic foods. So far community has been most active on the west coast, however the site is growing elsewhere as well. http://www.realfoodfinder.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.250.63 ( talk) 06:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
On the Internet, I keep seeing the term "wild harvested" associated with organic food, but I cannot find anything in Wikipedia about wild harvested food. This page describes the requirements for management of wild crops near the bottom of the page: Wild harvested food may be food gathered or harvested from a predestinated area that has been free from conventional pesticides and other prohibited substances for at least three years. The actual gathering of the wild crop should not be destructive to the environment and should sustain the growth and production of the wild crop. Once harvested, prohibited substances should not be added to the wild crop by the crop producer. Should wild harvested food be included in this article or should it have a separate article? -- Jreferee 21:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The edit made by User:Jav43 on March 2, 2007 included:
I reverted this edit for a couple reasons. One major reason is that the "Critisism" section isn't about the harm that organic farming does.
For example,
As to the 4 paragraphs from Organic farming, they don't contain nearly enough citations or actual "evidence of harm". JabberWok 23:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you missed the point of my edits. This article is full of discussion of organic farming practices. That discussion is one-sided, which firmly violates npov rules. There are two ways to balance this. One is to include both sides of the discussion, which I started. The other is to remove the references to organic farming practices and simply reference users to the 'organic farming' article. I suppose I'll edit this to that end. Please see section 18 of this talk page for my comments on this topic at the time of my edit. Jav43 04:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently big UK companies (e.g. Sainsburys, Tescos) are starting to roll back the organic laws through their sheer barganing power with the governement (e.g. nitrates) in order to cash in on the recent organic boom. Could we include something here? -- leopheard 01:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, could we include something re: people opposing organic produce not because they think it's no different or has no benefits, but because they consider it to be socio-economic related i.e. people are now starting to oppose it because they believe posh people are making a 'lifestyle statement' rather than purchasing organic for the right reasons. Almost inverted-snobbery if you would.
Perhaps under a heading called ==Social impact== ?? -- leopheard 01:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
There's was a number of spam links in the External links section which add nothing to the article and were, it seemed to me, largely spam. These have been removed. MidgleyDJ 10:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this article will point towards reliable sources that would be useful to this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6595801.stm Gantlord 12:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Why does this article encompass topics from the organic farming article? Shouldn't it avoid discussion of organic farming and remain limited to organic foods, leaving the full treatment of organic farming to that article? Jav43 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I undid the following edit by by 76.48.59.222 ( talk):
Organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious?
Learn the difference between organic foods and their traditionally grown counterparts. Decide which is best for you, considering nutrition, quality, taste, cost and other factors. You're in a bit of a dilemma standing in front of the produce section of your local supermarket. In one hand, you're holding a conventionally grown Granny Smith apple. In your other hand, you have one that's been organically grown. Both apples are firm, shiny and green. Both provide vitamins and fiber, and both are free of fat, sodium and cholesterol. The conventionally grown apple costs less and is a proven family favorite. But the organic apple has a label that says "USDA Organic." Does that mean it's better? Safer? More nutritious? Several differences between organic and nonorganic foods exist. Become a better informed consumer for your next trip to the supermarket. Organic or not? Check the label The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has established an organic certification program that requires all organic foods to meet strict government standards. These standards regulate how such foods are grown, handled and processed. Any farmer or food manufacturer who labels and sells a product as organic must be USDA certified as meeting these standards. Only producers who sell less than $5,000 a year in organic foods are exempt from this certification. If a food bears a USDA Organic label, it means it's produced and processed according to the USDA standards and that at least 95 percent of the food's ingredients are organically produced. The seal is voluntary, but many organic producers use it. Products that are completely organic — such as fruits, vegetables, eggs or other single-ingredient foods — are labeled 100 percent organic and can carry a small USDA seal. Foods that have more than one ingredient, such as breakfast cereal, can use the USDA organic seal or the following wording on their package labels, depending on the number of organic ingredients: · 100 percent organic. Products that are completely organic or made of all organic ingredients. · Organic. Products that are at least 95 percent organic. · Made with organic ingredients. These are products that contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients. The organic seal can't be used on these packages. Foods containing less than 70 percent organic ingredients can't use the organic seal or the word "organic" on their product label. They can include the organic items in their ingredient list, however.
You may see other terms on food labels, such as "all-natural," "free-range" or "hormone-free." These descriptions may be important to you, but don't confuse them with the term "organic." Only those foods that are grown and processed according to USDA organic standards can be labeled organic.
While most of this is good information, and could be included in the article, it doesn't fit in this section. It's style is unencyclopedia (e.g., "You're in a bit of a dilemma standing in front of the produce section of your local supermarket"). And it needs references. In short, more work needs to be done on this before it can be added to the article. Sunray 01:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This is actually copied word-for-word from a recent Yahoo article: [1]. Jav43 02:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you think this link to the British Library's Food Stories website should be added to the External links section? Its a learning interactive that includes oral testimony and background information to the organic food industry in the UK. ( Jenwren83 10:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/foodstories/index.html ( Jenwren83 10:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
Please get rid of these two sections. It's a poor way to divide up the article.
Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents".
Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and avoid problems like POV forks and undue weight.
- articles that "segregate" text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself;
- Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Pro_&_con_lists, Wikipedia_talk:Pro_&_con_lists, Template:Criticism-section).
- other structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.
- (Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a "debate"
— Omegatron 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The following sentence appeared in the article:
If you go to the web page the relevant quote is:
I thus removed the sentence for a couple reasons:
what is this, is this article getting a bit one sided on the critics side. i am sure people like moore and trevavas have lots of things to say on organic farming and food, but maybe we can get some other opinion as well, also the section on environmental impact says one thing and the one on sustainability says another thing, but they talk about the same thing; maybe the to sections can be united trueblood 16:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone put a tag at the top of the article stating that it contained weasel words. I cannot find any discussion of that on this page. I think that there is some onus on someone who places such a tag to point out weasel words. Better yet, the individual who spots weasel words could edit them out (i.e., be bold). If the editing chore seems too challenging, a note on this page or even a tag at the specific location in the article would be helpful. Sunray 20:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It's hard for the few other editors of this page to get an edit in edgewise when 60+ edits are made over the course of a few days by a single anonymous user.
Please talk about issues here on the discussion page before making a large number of changes. I'm still trying to comb through all the edits myself, and I'm sure there are plenty of good things added, nothing permanent has been lost. But there needs to be some review.
Also, I just wanted to make a couple points (useful to know for everyone):
Thanks. JabberWok 01:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to sign in, but I've been making the substantial edits on behalf of 750 organic organizations in 108 countries to better reflect the true state of affairs and to eliminate flagrant abuse of this page by opponents of organic farming and food.
The table I added is the global overview from the World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2007, which is the only global source of statistics and updated regulatory information on organics. I used the show preview button before making any changes permanent. I assure you nothing of relevance is lost. My changes are backed by millions of organic farmers. It's better to have a table that gives the overview of all regulations of organic farming in the world than have a few links to biased information about a few countries. Presumably earlier authors just didn't know or realize that other countries have regulations, or that Australia's regulation only is for export, and not for internal markets. In any case, I will continue to make many changes to these and every page related to organic on behalf of the organic movement, and I will not hesitate to remove erroneous and politically motivated content from the likes of Dennis Avery.
Nsorensen 16:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Nsorensen 09:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, OhanaUnited Talk page 15:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
i havent been involved in this project much, just someone who refers to this site very often. was reading this article and noticed this paragraph looks like it was played with as a joke, and managed to show up on the live version. hopefully this is the right method to report this problem if there is a way to revert this section:
Fresh, "unprocessed" organic food, such as crayons and scissors are purchased directly from growers, at farmers' markets, from on-farm stands, supermarkets, through speciality Crayola stores, and through Cats Stinking Association (CSA) projects. Unprocessed animal products like organic cameras are less commonly available in "fresh" form.
In Australia, organic thumb taks must be from free-range pins, rather than from battery operated s[5]. Kangaroos for the organic market may not be fed shrink hormones or witches such as cauldrons and brooms
68.104.55.97 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
i replaced this phrase: While organic farming is not primarily an environmental endeavor, there are claims that it is a somewhat less environmentally damaging farming method than conventional farming. organic farming is of course an environmental endeavor, look at any home page of an organic farming association. trueblood 11:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
i removed this passage for improvement : Also, non-organic farmers are exposed to far fewer food-borne microorganisms, such as E.coli. [1].
the study probably found that farmers in minnesota were exposed to microbes if there organic, please improve the wording to reflect that. without knowing the extend of the whole study i find a but much to conclude that is true for all organic farming trueblood 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
fail to see the interest to the article trueblood 14:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The label 'organic' is related to living things generally, and there's no discussion in the article of any conterovery surrounding the term organic as applied to food. Traditionally, all food would have been considered organic. -- Llewdor 17:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The motivations section simply isn't the sort of thing I expect, in an Wiki article, at all, though I'm no regular editor. Is there any reason at all that it shouldn't immediately be tagged with {{unreferencedsection}} and {{weasel}} ? -- Enantiodromos 21:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Logo organic.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the article and found it well referenced and NPOV. I have removed POV-check tag. TimL ( talk) 00:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The image File:EU organic farming logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 08:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I recently removed and placed on the talk page of another article information about pesticides and health effects on farm workers; Mesoderm reverted, noting " rv large-scale removal of important, on-topic, reliably sourced content -- this is a major reason for consumer purchases of organic foods." I have several issues with this section and the revert:
1) This information is tangential to an article on organic food. Indeed, I sampled a number of the sources, and they don't even use the words "organic food" in them. This is why I moved the information to the talk page of what I thought would be a much more appropriate location.
2) The fact that few, if any, of the sources uses the words "organic food" means that use in this article would likely constitute orginal research which is not allowed.
3) The idea that effects on farm workers are a "major reason" consumers purchase organic foods is, shall I say, unlikely. None of the surveys I have read on consumer attitudes towards organic food even mention farm worker health (as opposed to say environmental concerns, health concerns, personal safety issues).
This material really is not appropriate for this article (which is not to say it is not appropriate for Wikipedia; it just needs to find its right home).
As an aside, I will point anyone watching to the message I left above a few months back about the problems with MEDRS. I will be largely re-writing the safety and nutritional sections of this article using secondary reviews as recommended by WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS. Yobol ( talk) 16:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
(So in fact the benefits of organic farming may in many cases more like Buddhist sand gardens -- it may simply be a series of action which deliver spiritual healing and calm (the chicken didn't freeze in the truck going to the factory...they froze in the garden like nature intended. Guilt can be a powerful thing and avoiding it very powerful as well.) 66.68.23.251 ( talk) 12:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The sentence "There is widespread belief that organic food is significantly safer for consumption than food grown conventionally, based mainly on anecdotal evidence and testimonials rather than scientific evidence, which has fueled increased demand for organic food despite higher prices" is based on a source from 2006. Since the sentence uses the present tense, the source needs to be from 2011 in order for this sentence to be kept.
Recommendation: either delete the sentence or replace with "There WAS widespread belief..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.179.202 ( talk) 15:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The weight of the available scientific evidence has not shown a significant difference between organic and more conventionally grown food in terms of safety, nutritional value, or taste.
How can that be said. That is a matter of opinion. There is no fact here. And to put that in right in the introduction. That is bias. That is not what wikipedia is about. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.149.109 ( talk) 20:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on the study published here ( http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07352689.2011.554417 ), i've added "However, a recent research from School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, and published in Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, indicated that organic food could result in a potential increase in life expectancy by 25 days for men and 17 days for women. Such a conclusion challenge the conclusions of FSA. The study also suggested that using organic food may result in increased availability of vitamin C and other key nutrients in the food.", under the section 'Nutritional Value and taste'. One may improve/ rephrase the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effulgence108 ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Came across this article by chance, but note several significant problems:
If no one objections, I'll be paring down on much of the text that violates OR and Undue and adding studies and supporting statements as I find them. Yobol ( talk) 05:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
In an ideal world peer-reviewed articles are not manipulated and express the high integrity of scientists and those who finance them.
But for the moment peer-reviewing is causing a lot of harms including deaths if we take some medicines as example. It is outrageous that the word of people who experienced many problems taking medicines is not taken seriously and is considered as anecdote evidence.
Their physicians don't report them because they receive money to prescribe, to peer-review, to advertise, to ghost-write and other activities. It is hard to find integrity in science today.
The forth phase of clinical trials is surveillance after the drug is on the market which is not being done because the pharmaceutical company don't want to stop profiting even if it costs lives. Peer-reviewing has more to do with defending the corporations than the consumers.
Abstract: Recent scandals involving deceptive and sometimes even fraudulent publication practices by pharmaceutical companies have shaken the faith that many people have in the evidence produced in medical journals. This talk will review some of the recent scandals and some of the suggested changes in the peer-review process to address these scandals. Not all (or even most) industry funded research is biased, though, and there are assurances that you should look for that can help vouch for the credibility of a research study even when there are obvious conflicts of interest listed. http://www.childrensmercy.org/stats/weblog2007/ManipulationPeerReview.aspx
The sham of peer review – this is the big boy, IMO as the the term “peer-reviewed” will never carry the same weight in this field again. They clearly had a long-standing pattern of abusing the system to prevent “contrarian” views from being published. The key steps:
1) Withhold data/methods/code from those questioning their results (McIntyre, McKittrick, Keenan, etc.). Force them to reverse engineer the methods and make assumptions. Some assumptions will inevitably be mistaken 2) Attack the mistaken assumptions as clear evidence that the author is a fraud, the paper is garbage and is not worthy of publication 3) Pressure the journals/reviewers not to accept the paper based on its alleged inferiority and errors 4) After paper rejection, criticize those questioning their findings as not being peer reviewed 5) If a paper does get through, attack the journal as bush league (e.g. E&E) or go after the editor to prevent reoccurrence (e.g. GRL) 6) Repeat as often as needed http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/3452/
Discussed are increasing science community and university dependence on private industry funding and on development of proprietary technologies; http://www.ijsaf.org/contents/16-1/lotter2/index.htmlDiscussed are future food production strategies for developing countries, recently framed in the 2008 UNsponsored International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology, an action plan that emphasizes non-proprietary, agroecology-based approaches to food production and does not include crop transgenics as a central strategy. The under-funding of non-proprietary agroecological approaches to food production is discussed. http://www.ijsaf.org/contents/16-1/lotter2/index.html
-- Justana ( talk) 21:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC) -- there's a reference to 1939 coining of "organic farming", but google shows lots of references to organic farming pre-1939, possibly as early as 1898. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.242 ( talk) 11:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The environmental impact of pesticides as well as the impact to the health of farm workers are reasons given for purchasing organic food.[citation needed] just to add some evidence about the health of farmers (and their children), look here http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi/10.1289/ehp.1003185, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00039896.1988.9934372, finally, this recent article is done in URBAN pregnant mothers-to-be and relates the consumption of pesticides and their children's IQ according to metabolites of organophosphates (ie pesticides) and the results are interesting, here is the article http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.1003183. After reading this I think there is some evidence that non-organic food is NOT the same. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.15.34 ( talk) 21:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I made some modifications to this section. The main problems were:
In the future, anyone planning on editing a part of a page that requires heavy citation of scientific studies to make claims, (such as a section on nutritional benefits), would do well to read [[]]. If you don't have an academic background in a field with lots of publishing and citing and all that (or you're not from the hard sciences, and could use a little brushing up on how studies work there), please read the relevant Identifying reliable sources.
Stay cool. -- Monk of the highest order (t) 03:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I did a quick Google Scholar search on "organic food nutrition" and what I found there does not seem to agree with the way the article is written. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=organic+food+nutrition&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=XVI_T5nDJ5GdiAeDv-zLBA&ved=0CBwQgQMwAA Also, the health section should also mention the chemical residue on the food, not only the nutrition. It could be nice to also include the health effect of organic farming on other foods, for example fisheries. In Bangladesh it is widely agreed that chemical use in agriculture causes declines in fish stocks, therefore causing malnutrition. -- ulrikhorn (t) 18 February 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC).
The reader needs to be told in as clear and upfront way as possible what kind of referent this is; what kind of term this is. This is not a technical term with a specific meaning universally adhered to in scientific journals and such. It is a political term or some such thing; a word whose definition changes with time and place depending on local law. This is what the body of the article says. That's according to this article. What needs changing is the lead. This idea, fact, needs to be summarized in the lead alongside the other parts of the definition such as "pesticide free" with such short, to-the-point words: perhaps "...means different things in different places..." or "...definition depends on proof in packaging laws in effect..." or a better wording of your choosing that would get this point across in a way it communicates that other parts of the meaning such as "pesticide free" are put in proper context. Please help me figure out the best way to re-word the lead. Chrisrus ( talk) 21:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I provide here the dictionary definition of ‘organic’: ‘derived from an animal or vegetable protein, of or pertaining to animal or vegetable protein or substance’
In accordance with this definition, all foods can be understood to be ‘organic’, with the possible exception of things such as sand (which I suppose may find its way into a meal as a consequence of lake-side lunching) or plastics,or rocks or some other kind of incomsumables.
The separation of foods into ‘organic’/’inorganic’ on the basis of chemical composition that is not relevant to the above standard is inappropriate, and an indication of bias. Without some further evidence regarding the use of additives and preservatives in food it is not appropriate to impose artificial definitions. This is a violation of our NPOV policy.
This article should be marked for deletion. --rasko99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasko99 ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
You're logic is shaky at best. There are different definitions of organic, and this article clearly focus' on the type of organic food the U.S government allows to be labeled as organic. 98.214.117.203 ( talk) 03:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
it is true that there are multiple definitions of 'organic'-- the popular usage of the term is different then this accepted dictionary definiton-- something more along the line of 'foods created, grown, or produce without the benefit of artificial addivities or the influence of human technologies' -- this is what I believe is implied by advertisers and marketers that make use of this label to market certain kinds of produce/eggs/other food items as 'organic' or 'more organic'-- however, I do not believe that the FDA currently provides standards or regulations for this kind of labeling. The term is misleading, it is inconsistent with a common sense understanding of the term 'organic', and the article should either reflect these realities or be deleted.
is there anybody working on this article with an opinion as to how to proceed? ---rasko99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasko99 ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed the comment
from the beginning of the main section. This is at best in need of a drastic rewrite to avoid sounding horribly POV, and at worst needs to be simply forgotten. The assertion that the term "cannot be considered a scientifically meaningful definition" is, at best, questionable. I'm not an expert, but this sounds like it was written by someone who has an axe to grind.
I'd be comfortable with it being reinserted if some RS citations came along with it.
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 23:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Recent changes have inserted clear POV problems, in that they are misrepresenting sources and using sources that do not appear appropriate.
Source #1, malformed ref, does not mention organic foods and is therefore WP:OR to use as a source here to discuss its safety.
Source #2, here appears to be a student essay, not a peer reviewed article as would be expected by our guideline on medical sourcing. Ironically, the conclusion of this student paper doesn't even support the cited sentence that there is a significant difference between organic and convention foods, noting "While organic foods are produced using biological methods and in the absence of synthetic crop inputs, this does not guarantee more nutritious, healthier, and safer products. While studies have been conducted, most of the results were deemed inconclusive because too few experiments with too much variation have been performed. Thus, consumers should be wary when purchasing food products, since “organic” does not necessarily equal superior food quality."
Source #3, here appears to be a paper written in conjunction with a student, and no indication that it has gone through any peer review (a search on MEDLINE showed no results for this title), thus meaning it does not meet MEDRS. Again, ironically, this source does not support the suggestion that organic food is healthier, noting, "However, there are still far too few studies completed to establish a consensus regarding the health benefit of organic foods."
Source #4, here does not support the statement that there is a health difference between organic and conventional, noting "While many studies demonstrate these qualitative differences between organic and conventional foods, it is premature to conclude that either food system is superior to the other with respect to safety or nutritional composition. Pesticide residues, naturally occurring toxins, nitrates, and polyphenolic compounds exert their health risks or benefits on a dose-related basis, and data do not yet exist to ascertain whether the differences in the levels of such chemicals between organic foods and conventional foods are of biological significance."
Source #5, here does not even speak to health effects (speaking only of environmental and economic issues), and I cannot tell if it has been peer reviewed either.
These sources therefore either do not meet our standards as WP:MEDRS or do not support the cited statements, failing WP:V. I have therefore removed them, yet again. Yobol ( talk) 05:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The best argument for organic food is the cancer argument, but this argument has been omitted from the article, even where it as cited, such as the notable argument between the ACS and the President's Panel on Cancer. Although the presidential panel avoided the word "organic", it clearly promoted "food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers", which by definition includes organic foods, and which is clearly relevant enough for inclusion in this article. It was entered in the article with several goods citations (including primary and secondary sources). It's complete removal indicates a bias in the editors of this article. The strongest argument for organic foods is almost omitted (with only the mention of the ACS official position that not enough study has taken place to be able to determine an answer, and this is hidden at the end of a "consumer safety" section), while the debunking of much weaker (and therefore irrelevant) arguments is covered extensively. Gregcaletta ( talk) 10:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better to remove the whole section "Health and Safety". First, scientifically it is a battleground. Second, the massive food industry will weigh in with their money, paying for scientific research that has a WP:COI. Third, the exclusion of sources, giving undue weight to the medical side of the story. The Banner talk 13:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
You are making very specific claims about a conspiracy with absolutely zero evidence. For health claims we use MEDRS. Your objections sound like special pleading. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
23:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
So, if I finds books supporting that organic food is safe and healthy, they are allowed? According to Yobol restore; books aren't indexed in pubmed, so not finding them there is not a reason to remove. The Banner talk 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
TheBanner appears interested in placing POV tags on this article, but this Talk page does not detail specific POV issues and how they can be remedied. A tag like the POV tag needs active Talk page discussions that provide specific detail about the concerns and how they can be remedied, so that the problems can be addressed and the tags removed. This is especially true for an article-wide tag, which indicates that an editor is concerned that the entire article has significant POV problems. TheBanner pointed to the
WP:MEDRS and
Removal of "Health and Safety" section discussions, but they do not provide specific, actionable detail about the apparent POV concerns. The WP:MEDRS section discusses which sourcing guidelines should be applicable, and the Removal of "Health and Safety" section discussion has wandered into off-topic territory. There are no active Talk page discussions to support the POV tags. If the tags are replaced, please open a Talk page discussion and provide specific detail about actionable concerns. Cheers...
Zad
68
04:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
You added text specifically saying homeopathy is effective despite that being contrary to the most reliable secondary sources. Do you deny that? IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)The article has been locked down due to the above dispute, and the last alternative version to the current, locked version contains the following paragraph. This version is one which I edited to restore a valid viewpoint and restore a POV balance to the article, BUT also changed from previous versions to clearly state who holds the position, dates, and other information to allow readers to draw their own conclusions from the data. I also made some small edits to other paragraphs to remove unnecessarily POV adjectives and create more neutral language. I removed two sentences sourced to dead links, these changes were also reverted. There appear to be no arguments presented above other than an insistence that MEDRS must be followed in this instance. However, that is an argument that makes no sense, as the MEDRS literature is already covered in the article and their dismissal of the organic food industry is well-discussed. As one the very core issues in the organic food industry is this very health and safety concern, to not discuss it at all in the article is to have the article have serious NPOV problems. It is my position that it is simplistic in the extreme to provide only the negative view without the positive view as well, and MEDRS is not an appropriate limitation on sources, though, clearly, such sources are, of course, preferred when available. Therefore, I recommend restoring the following paragraph, or, in the alternative, a similar expression of the concern raised by supporters of organic food, with reliable sources per WP:RS. Montanabw (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
However, a 1989 peer-reviewed study sponsored by the [[Natural Resources Defense Council]] identified an association between consumption of pesticide residues from conventionally grown food and cancer risk.<ref name=Sewell>{{cite journal |author=Sewell B, Whyatt R |title=Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in Our Children's Food |journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |year=1989 |month=February |pmid= |doi= |url=http://docs.nrdc.org/health/files/hea_11052401a.pdf }}</ref> A 2012 risk assessment estimated that cancer benchmark levels in preschool children were exceeded for several toxic substances and recommended consumption of organic foods as one strategy for reducing risk. <ref name=Vogt>{{cite journal |author=Vogt R, Bennett D, Cassady D, Frost J, Ritz B, Hertz-Picciotto I |title=Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment |journal=Environmental Health |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages= |year=2012 |month=November |pmid=23140444 |doi= |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23140444 }}</ref> Proponents of organic food express concern that children are being exposed to hazardous levels of pesticides in fruits and vegetables. In 1989, NRDC estimated that 5,500 to 6,200 of the current population of American preschoolers may eventually get cancer "solely as a result of their exposure before six years of age to eight pesticides or metabolites commonly found in fruits and vegetables." This estimate was based on conservative risk assessment procedures, which indicate that greater than 50% of an individual's lifetime risk of cancer from exposure to carcinogenic pesticides used on fruit takes place during the first six years of life.<ref name=Sewell/> In a study conducted on children and adults in California, consumption of conventionally grown foods was associated with excessive cancer benchmark levels for all children for DDE, which was primarily sourced from dairy, potatoes, meat, freshwater fish, and pizza.<ref name=Vogt>{{cite journal |author=Vogt R, Bennett D, Cassady D, Frost J, Ritz B, Hertz-Picciotto I |title=Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment |journal=Environmental Health |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages= |year=2012 |month=November |pmid=23140444 |doi= |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23140444 }}</ref>
Please discuss below. Montanabw (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Montana, first, let me commend you at starting this conversation. Honestly we're at an impasse here if there is still an insistence on using non-
WP:MEDRS sources to try to support medical claims in articles. Having those claims carefully couched and qualified and attributed does not, in my evaluation, get past the
WP:MEDRS requirement. I'd suggest we take it to
dispute resolution as a start, because I don't see anybody here being convinced yet by the arguments of others. The center of the argument appears to be: Are the
WP:MEDRS sourcing requirements in effect for medical claims in non-medical articles? I believe the Wikipedia consensus is Yes. We have 10 days until the article is unprotected, and we could be well along in making progress at
WP:DR by then.
Zad
68
20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
DRN? Why not just ask at WT:MEDRS. People seriously want to include non-MEDRS sources about cancer risks? If so, an RfC is easy: "Should we use non-MEDRS sources to make claims about what causes cancer". IRWolfie- ( talk) 01:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) It sounds like you are proposing that because this is an article about food, and not some medical topic, WP:MEDRS should not apply. However, the WP:MEDRS guideline, which was promoted to guideline status four years ago, is not limited to articles about straight medical topics. From the guideline:
Clearly the guideline is not limited to biomedical information only in medical articles, but "in articles," meaning, all Wikipedia articles. Food is eaten by humans and affects human health. The claims that were being proposed here were clearly biomedical claims, and WP:MEDRS applies.Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.
Zad
68
04:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)? IRWolfie- ( talk) 16:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that blanket application of the secondary source rule in this case creates a systemic POV problem, and whilst I appreciate your point about the particular article in question in MMR being pointed to, it was only illustrative. I can see no compelling argument to not use some selected primary articles to illustrate that the view is held by academics, who have produced peer-reviewed articles on the subject. At the moment, the article reads to me as if the only people who believe some of the points of contention discussed are uninformed members of the public, which, from the existence of primary research appears not to be the case. In fact, for at least one section, the point is specifically made in the cited review article that too little evidence exists to make a firm judgement - a clear cut case IMHO to use some primary sources, with appropriate caveats and balance.
In general, the article is full of slightly dubious statements, mostly tipping towards the anti-organic stance, like commenting on the naming convention to say that calling food organic or non-organic is "technically inaccurate and completely inappropriate when applied to farming, the production of food, and to foodstuffs themselves" without any sort of citation.
With no particular view on whether organic is or is not a desirable trait in food, this article does appear to reflect a clear bias, which judicious use of primary sources, with appropriate copy editing and balance, would do much to correct. OwainDavies ( about)( talk) edited at 14:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. Here's the next question: Are we at an impasse? Has anyone changed their position from where they were several weeks ago? We have three or four primary editors and two or three other editors discussing this issue (endlessly) and I don't see anyone's position changing. And the neutral party here is getting accused of bias! Is there any place for a compromise on this issue? The organic food movement is not "fringe" even if it is not "conventional" and therefore, is there a place to carefully outline ALL more-or-less "mainstream" (NRDC is hardly a fringe group, and Monsanto, which funds research to "prove' their products are harmless, isn't exactly NPOV) views with the best sourcing available for each? Montanabw (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's your Monsanto info: evidence that Monsanto Corporation funds these studies that "debunk" organic food benefits. And, also add Cargill. There are other sources confirming the funding bias. There are also peer reviewed sources on the health risks of pesticides that can meet the MEDRS standard that are being completely ignored, see also [3], [4] and Please don't tell me that a Presidential Report from NIH and another one won't pass muster here! Montanabw (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Passing comment (not watching this page): The disputed text does some unfortunate WP:PEACOCKing of the study. See WP:MEDMOS on writing style. It would be important point out the age of the study (You want us to highlight a study from 1989? Really? Twenty-three years ago?), but the stuff about it being "peer-reviewed" and details like where the people live, is inappropriate. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
We recently began work on a global independent directory of ecolabels ( http://www.ecolabelling.org). With editorial permission, we would like to add the link: http://ecolabelling.org/type/food/ with text: Food ecolabels at ecolabelling.org to the Organic wikipedia page. We currently list 61 labels from around the world. Please feel free to drop us a line at info@ecolabelling.org if you have any questions.
The section dealing with critiques of organic food fails to include a rather weighty argument...proponents of organic food say that it is better for the environment because harmful pesticides aren't used. however, the question of what is best for the environment is open for debate. Surely, chemicals and pesticides are bad for the environment, but pesticide use has allowed the crop per acre harvest to grow three to four times over the past fifty years. If everything was grown organically, farm area would need to be increased drastically, and that would mean less room for the rainforests, etc... The economist had a good article on this last month, if someone wants to cite all of this and work it out further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.168.30.130 ( talk) 04:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
QAI logo and reference should be removed, as it promotes single for-profit company, and added to a list of current accredited certifying agents. Berimbau1 23:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
this is from the criticism section: Toxicity of "organic pesticides": Conventional pesticides must be thoroughly studied before they can be placed on the market. However, such studies are not required for the pesticides used in organic agriculture [citation needed]. For example, the botanical pesticide Sabadilla is highly toxic to honeybees, and according to the California Department of Environmental Protection its mammalian toxicology has not been fully studied
i think it is an important point, only i am not sure if it is true, i point a citation needed in some time ago. soon i will just delete this statement. if someone finds references, she can put it back.. trueblood 11:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I realize that wikipedia is not a collection of links, but users might like to know where to buy organic foods and other such products. I have found a reputable dealer online that I think we should add to the links section. http://www.shopnatural.com
This is similar to already listed OmOrganics, but not limited to the Bay Area. The site has a grass-roots aspect to is as well. In addition to the base collection of listings, people list their favorite local place that sells or serves organic foods. So far community has been most active on the west coast, however the site is growing elsewhere as well. http://www.realfoodfinder.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.250.63 ( talk) 06:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
On the Internet, I keep seeing the term "wild harvested" associated with organic food, but I cannot find anything in Wikipedia about wild harvested food. This page describes the requirements for management of wild crops near the bottom of the page: Wild harvested food may be food gathered or harvested from a predestinated area that has been free from conventional pesticides and other prohibited substances for at least three years. The actual gathering of the wild crop should not be destructive to the environment and should sustain the growth and production of the wild crop. Once harvested, prohibited substances should not be added to the wild crop by the crop producer. Should wild harvested food be included in this article or should it have a separate article? -- Jreferee 21:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The edit made by User:Jav43 on March 2, 2007 included:
I reverted this edit for a couple reasons. One major reason is that the "Critisism" section isn't about the harm that organic farming does.
For example,
As to the 4 paragraphs from Organic farming, they don't contain nearly enough citations or actual "evidence of harm". JabberWok 23:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you missed the point of my edits. This article is full of discussion of organic farming practices. That discussion is one-sided, which firmly violates npov rules. There are two ways to balance this. One is to include both sides of the discussion, which I started. The other is to remove the references to organic farming practices and simply reference users to the 'organic farming' article. I suppose I'll edit this to that end. Please see section 18 of this talk page for my comments on this topic at the time of my edit. Jav43 04:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently big UK companies (e.g. Sainsburys, Tescos) are starting to roll back the organic laws through their sheer barganing power with the governement (e.g. nitrates) in order to cash in on the recent organic boom. Could we include something here? -- leopheard 01:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, could we include something re: people opposing organic produce not because they think it's no different or has no benefits, but because they consider it to be socio-economic related i.e. people are now starting to oppose it because they believe posh people are making a 'lifestyle statement' rather than purchasing organic for the right reasons. Almost inverted-snobbery if you would.
Perhaps under a heading called ==Social impact== ?? -- leopheard 01:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
There's was a number of spam links in the External links section which add nothing to the article and were, it seemed to me, largely spam. These have been removed. MidgleyDJ 10:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this article will point towards reliable sources that would be useful to this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6595801.stm Gantlord 12:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Why does this article encompass topics from the organic farming article? Shouldn't it avoid discussion of organic farming and remain limited to organic foods, leaving the full treatment of organic farming to that article? Jav43 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I undid the following edit by by 76.48.59.222 ( talk):
Organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious?
Learn the difference between organic foods and their traditionally grown counterparts. Decide which is best for you, considering nutrition, quality, taste, cost and other factors. You're in a bit of a dilemma standing in front of the produce section of your local supermarket. In one hand, you're holding a conventionally grown Granny Smith apple. In your other hand, you have one that's been organically grown. Both apples are firm, shiny and green. Both provide vitamins and fiber, and both are free of fat, sodium and cholesterol. The conventionally grown apple costs less and is a proven family favorite. But the organic apple has a label that says "USDA Organic." Does that mean it's better? Safer? More nutritious? Several differences between organic and nonorganic foods exist. Become a better informed consumer for your next trip to the supermarket. Organic or not? Check the label The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has established an organic certification program that requires all organic foods to meet strict government standards. These standards regulate how such foods are grown, handled and processed. Any farmer or food manufacturer who labels and sells a product as organic must be USDA certified as meeting these standards. Only producers who sell less than $5,000 a year in organic foods are exempt from this certification. If a food bears a USDA Organic label, it means it's produced and processed according to the USDA standards and that at least 95 percent of the food's ingredients are organically produced. The seal is voluntary, but many organic producers use it. Products that are completely organic — such as fruits, vegetables, eggs or other single-ingredient foods — are labeled 100 percent organic and can carry a small USDA seal. Foods that have more than one ingredient, such as breakfast cereal, can use the USDA organic seal or the following wording on their package labels, depending on the number of organic ingredients: · 100 percent organic. Products that are completely organic or made of all organic ingredients. · Organic. Products that are at least 95 percent organic. · Made with organic ingredients. These are products that contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients. The organic seal can't be used on these packages. Foods containing less than 70 percent organic ingredients can't use the organic seal or the word "organic" on their product label. They can include the organic items in their ingredient list, however.
You may see other terms on food labels, such as "all-natural," "free-range" or "hormone-free." These descriptions may be important to you, but don't confuse them with the term "organic." Only those foods that are grown and processed according to USDA organic standards can be labeled organic.
While most of this is good information, and could be included in the article, it doesn't fit in this section. It's style is unencyclopedia (e.g., "You're in a bit of a dilemma standing in front of the produce section of your local supermarket"). And it needs references. In short, more work needs to be done on this before it can be added to the article. Sunray 01:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This is actually copied word-for-word from a recent Yahoo article: [1]. Jav43 02:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you think this link to the British Library's Food Stories website should be added to the External links section? Its a learning interactive that includes oral testimony and background information to the organic food industry in the UK. ( Jenwren83 10:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/foodstories/index.html ( Jenwren83 10:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
Please get rid of these two sections. It's a poor way to divide up the article.
Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents".
Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and avoid problems like POV forks and undue weight.
- articles that "segregate" text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself;
- Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Pro_&_con_lists, Wikipedia_talk:Pro_&_con_lists, Template:Criticism-section).
- other structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.
- (Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a "debate"
— Omegatron 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The following sentence appeared in the article:
If you go to the web page the relevant quote is:
I thus removed the sentence for a couple reasons:
what is this, is this article getting a bit one sided on the critics side. i am sure people like moore and trevavas have lots of things to say on organic farming and food, but maybe we can get some other opinion as well, also the section on environmental impact says one thing and the one on sustainability says another thing, but they talk about the same thing; maybe the to sections can be united trueblood 16:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone put a tag at the top of the article stating that it contained weasel words. I cannot find any discussion of that on this page. I think that there is some onus on someone who places such a tag to point out weasel words. Better yet, the individual who spots weasel words could edit them out (i.e., be bold). If the editing chore seems too challenging, a note on this page or even a tag at the specific location in the article would be helpful. Sunray 20:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It's hard for the few other editors of this page to get an edit in edgewise when 60+ edits are made over the course of a few days by a single anonymous user.
Please talk about issues here on the discussion page before making a large number of changes. I'm still trying to comb through all the edits myself, and I'm sure there are plenty of good things added, nothing permanent has been lost. But there needs to be some review.
Also, I just wanted to make a couple points (useful to know for everyone):
Thanks. JabberWok 01:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to sign in, but I've been making the substantial edits on behalf of 750 organic organizations in 108 countries to better reflect the true state of affairs and to eliminate flagrant abuse of this page by opponents of organic farming and food.
The table I added is the global overview from the World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2007, which is the only global source of statistics and updated regulatory information on organics. I used the show preview button before making any changes permanent. I assure you nothing of relevance is lost. My changes are backed by millions of organic farmers. It's better to have a table that gives the overview of all regulations of organic farming in the world than have a few links to biased information about a few countries. Presumably earlier authors just didn't know or realize that other countries have regulations, or that Australia's regulation only is for export, and not for internal markets. In any case, I will continue to make many changes to these and every page related to organic on behalf of the organic movement, and I will not hesitate to remove erroneous and politically motivated content from the likes of Dennis Avery.
Nsorensen 16:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Nsorensen 09:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, OhanaUnited Talk page 15:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
i havent been involved in this project much, just someone who refers to this site very often. was reading this article and noticed this paragraph looks like it was played with as a joke, and managed to show up on the live version. hopefully this is the right method to report this problem if there is a way to revert this section:
Fresh, "unprocessed" organic food, such as crayons and scissors are purchased directly from growers, at farmers' markets, from on-farm stands, supermarkets, through speciality Crayola stores, and through Cats Stinking Association (CSA) projects. Unprocessed animal products like organic cameras are less commonly available in "fresh" form.
In Australia, organic thumb taks must be from free-range pins, rather than from battery operated s[5]. Kangaroos for the organic market may not be fed shrink hormones or witches such as cauldrons and brooms
68.104.55.97 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
i replaced this phrase: While organic farming is not primarily an environmental endeavor, there are claims that it is a somewhat less environmentally damaging farming method than conventional farming. organic farming is of course an environmental endeavor, look at any home page of an organic farming association. trueblood 11:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
i removed this passage for improvement : Also, non-organic farmers are exposed to far fewer food-borne microorganisms, such as E.coli. [1].
the study probably found that farmers in minnesota were exposed to microbes if there organic, please improve the wording to reflect that. without knowing the extend of the whole study i find a but much to conclude that is true for all organic farming trueblood 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
fail to see the interest to the article trueblood 14:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The label 'organic' is related to living things generally, and there's no discussion in the article of any conterovery surrounding the term organic as applied to food. Traditionally, all food would have been considered organic. -- Llewdor 17:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The motivations section simply isn't the sort of thing I expect, in an Wiki article, at all, though I'm no regular editor. Is there any reason at all that it shouldn't immediately be tagged with {{unreferencedsection}} and {{weasel}} ? -- Enantiodromos 21:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Logo organic.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the article and found it well referenced and NPOV. I have removed POV-check tag. TimL ( talk) 00:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The image File:EU organic farming logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 08:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I recently removed and placed on the talk page of another article information about pesticides and health effects on farm workers; Mesoderm reverted, noting " rv large-scale removal of important, on-topic, reliably sourced content -- this is a major reason for consumer purchases of organic foods." I have several issues with this section and the revert:
1) This information is tangential to an article on organic food. Indeed, I sampled a number of the sources, and they don't even use the words "organic food" in them. This is why I moved the information to the talk page of what I thought would be a much more appropriate location.
2) The fact that few, if any, of the sources uses the words "organic food" means that use in this article would likely constitute orginal research which is not allowed.
3) The idea that effects on farm workers are a "major reason" consumers purchase organic foods is, shall I say, unlikely. None of the surveys I have read on consumer attitudes towards organic food even mention farm worker health (as opposed to say environmental concerns, health concerns, personal safety issues).
This material really is not appropriate for this article (which is not to say it is not appropriate for Wikipedia; it just needs to find its right home).
As an aside, I will point anyone watching to the message I left above a few months back about the problems with MEDRS. I will be largely re-writing the safety and nutritional sections of this article using secondary reviews as recommended by WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS. Yobol ( talk) 16:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
(So in fact the benefits of organic farming may in many cases more like Buddhist sand gardens -- it may simply be a series of action which deliver spiritual healing and calm (the chicken didn't freeze in the truck going to the factory...they froze in the garden like nature intended. Guilt can be a powerful thing and avoiding it very powerful as well.) 66.68.23.251 ( talk) 12:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The sentence "There is widespread belief that organic food is significantly safer for consumption than food grown conventionally, based mainly on anecdotal evidence and testimonials rather than scientific evidence, which has fueled increased demand for organic food despite higher prices" is based on a source from 2006. Since the sentence uses the present tense, the source needs to be from 2011 in order for this sentence to be kept.
Recommendation: either delete the sentence or replace with "There WAS widespread belief..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.179.202 ( talk) 15:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The weight of the available scientific evidence has not shown a significant difference between organic and more conventionally grown food in terms of safety, nutritional value, or taste.
How can that be said. That is a matter of opinion. There is no fact here. And to put that in right in the introduction. That is bias. That is not what wikipedia is about. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.149.109 ( talk) 20:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on the study published here ( http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07352689.2011.554417 ), i've added "However, a recent research from School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, and published in Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, indicated that organic food could result in a potential increase in life expectancy by 25 days for men and 17 days for women. Such a conclusion challenge the conclusions of FSA. The study also suggested that using organic food may result in increased availability of vitamin C and other key nutrients in the food.", under the section 'Nutritional Value and taste'. One may improve/ rephrase the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effulgence108 ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Came across this article by chance, but note several significant problems:
If no one objections, I'll be paring down on much of the text that violates OR and Undue and adding studies and supporting statements as I find them. Yobol ( talk) 05:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
In an ideal world peer-reviewed articles are not manipulated and express the high integrity of scientists and those who finance them.
But for the moment peer-reviewing is causing a lot of harms including deaths if we take some medicines as example. It is outrageous that the word of people who experienced many problems taking medicines is not taken seriously and is considered as anecdote evidence.
Their physicians don't report them because they receive money to prescribe, to peer-review, to advertise, to ghost-write and other activities. It is hard to find integrity in science today.
The forth phase of clinical trials is surveillance after the drug is on the market which is not being done because the pharmaceutical company don't want to stop profiting even if it costs lives. Peer-reviewing has more to do with defending the corporations than the consumers.
Abstract: Recent scandals involving deceptive and sometimes even fraudulent publication practices by pharmaceutical companies have shaken the faith that many people have in the evidence produced in medical journals. This talk will review some of the recent scandals and some of the suggested changes in the peer-review process to address these scandals. Not all (or even most) industry funded research is biased, though, and there are assurances that you should look for that can help vouch for the credibility of a research study even when there are obvious conflicts of interest listed. http://www.childrensmercy.org/stats/weblog2007/ManipulationPeerReview.aspx
The sham of peer review – this is the big boy, IMO as the the term “peer-reviewed” will never carry the same weight in this field again. They clearly had a long-standing pattern of abusing the system to prevent “contrarian” views from being published. The key steps:
1) Withhold data/methods/code from those questioning their results (McIntyre, McKittrick, Keenan, etc.). Force them to reverse engineer the methods and make assumptions. Some assumptions will inevitably be mistaken 2) Attack the mistaken assumptions as clear evidence that the author is a fraud, the paper is garbage and is not worthy of publication 3) Pressure the journals/reviewers not to accept the paper based on its alleged inferiority and errors 4) After paper rejection, criticize those questioning their findings as not being peer reviewed 5) If a paper does get through, attack the journal as bush league (e.g. E&E) or go after the editor to prevent reoccurrence (e.g. GRL) 6) Repeat as often as needed http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/3452/
Discussed are increasing science community and university dependence on private industry funding and on development of proprietary technologies; http://www.ijsaf.org/contents/16-1/lotter2/index.htmlDiscussed are future food production strategies for developing countries, recently framed in the 2008 UNsponsored International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology, an action plan that emphasizes non-proprietary, agroecology-based approaches to food production and does not include crop transgenics as a central strategy. The under-funding of non-proprietary agroecological approaches to food production is discussed. http://www.ijsaf.org/contents/16-1/lotter2/index.html
-- Justana ( talk) 21:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC) -- there's a reference to 1939 coining of "organic farming", but google shows lots of references to organic farming pre-1939, possibly as early as 1898. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.242 ( talk) 11:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The environmental impact of pesticides as well as the impact to the health of farm workers are reasons given for purchasing organic food.[citation needed] just to add some evidence about the health of farmers (and their children), look here http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi/10.1289/ehp.1003185, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00039896.1988.9934372, finally, this recent article is done in URBAN pregnant mothers-to-be and relates the consumption of pesticides and their children's IQ according to metabolites of organophosphates (ie pesticides) and the results are interesting, here is the article http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.1003183. After reading this I think there is some evidence that non-organic food is NOT the same. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.15.34 ( talk) 21:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I made some modifications to this section. The main problems were:
In the future, anyone planning on editing a part of a page that requires heavy citation of scientific studies to make claims, (such as a section on nutritional benefits), would do well to read [[]]. If you don't have an academic background in a field with lots of publishing and citing and all that (or you're not from the hard sciences, and could use a little brushing up on how studies work there), please read the relevant Identifying reliable sources.
Stay cool. -- Monk of the highest order (t) 03:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I did a quick Google Scholar search on "organic food nutrition" and what I found there does not seem to agree with the way the article is written. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=organic+food+nutrition&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=XVI_T5nDJ5GdiAeDv-zLBA&ved=0CBwQgQMwAA Also, the health section should also mention the chemical residue on the food, not only the nutrition. It could be nice to also include the health effect of organic farming on other foods, for example fisheries. In Bangladesh it is widely agreed that chemical use in agriculture causes declines in fish stocks, therefore causing malnutrition. -- ulrikhorn (t) 18 February 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC).
The reader needs to be told in as clear and upfront way as possible what kind of referent this is; what kind of term this is. This is not a technical term with a specific meaning universally adhered to in scientific journals and such. It is a political term or some such thing; a word whose definition changes with time and place depending on local law. This is what the body of the article says. That's according to this article. What needs changing is the lead. This idea, fact, needs to be summarized in the lead alongside the other parts of the definition such as "pesticide free" with such short, to-the-point words: perhaps "...means different things in different places..." or "...definition depends on proof in packaging laws in effect..." or a better wording of your choosing that would get this point across in a way it communicates that other parts of the meaning such as "pesticide free" are put in proper context. Please help me figure out the best way to re-word the lead. Chrisrus ( talk) 21:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I provide here the dictionary definition of ‘organic’: ‘derived from an animal or vegetable protein, of or pertaining to animal or vegetable protein or substance’
In accordance with this definition, all foods can be understood to be ‘organic’, with the possible exception of things such as sand (which I suppose may find its way into a meal as a consequence of lake-side lunching) or plastics,or rocks or some other kind of incomsumables.
The separation of foods into ‘organic’/’inorganic’ on the basis of chemical composition that is not relevant to the above standard is inappropriate, and an indication of bias. Without some further evidence regarding the use of additives and preservatives in food it is not appropriate to impose artificial definitions. This is a violation of our NPOV policy.
This article should be marked for deletion. --rasko99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasko99 ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
You're logic is shaky at best. There are different definitions of organic, and this article clearly focus' on the type of organic food the U.S government allows to be labeled as organic. 98.214.117.203 ( talk) 03:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
it is true that there are multiple definitions of 'organic'-- the popular usage of the term is different then this accepted dictionary definiton-- something more along the line of 'foods created, grown, or produce without the benefit of artificial addivities or the influence of human technologies' -- this is what I believe is implied by advertisers and marketers that make use of this label to market certain kinds of produce/eggs/other food items as 'organic' or 'more organic'-- however, I do not believe that the FDA currently provides standards or regulations for this kind of labeling. The term is misleading, it is inconsistent with a common sense understanding of the term 'organic', and the article should either reflect these realities or be deleted.
is there anybody working on this article with an opinion as to how to proceed? ---rasko99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasko99 ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed the comment
from the beginning of the main section. This is at best in need of a drastic rewrite to avoid sounding horribly POV, and at worst needs to be simply forgotten. The assertion that the term "cannot be considered a scientifically meaningful definition" is, at best, questionable. I'm not an expert, but this sounds like it was written by someone who has an axe to grind.
I'd be comfortable with it being reinserted if some RS citations came along with it.
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 23:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Recent changes have inserted clear POV problems, in that they are misrepresenting sources and using sources that do not appear appropriate.
Source #1, malformed ref, does not mention organic foods and is therefore WP:OR to use as a source here to discuss its safety.
Source #2, here appears to be a student essay, not a peer reviewed article as would be expected by our guideline on medical sourcing. Ironically, the conclusion of this student paper doesn't even support the cited sentence that there is a significant difference between organic and convention foods, noting "While organic foods are produced using biological methods and in the absence of synthetic crop inputs, this does not guarantee more nutritious, healthier, and safer products. While studies have been conducted, most of the results were deemed inconclusive because too few experiments with too much variation have been performed. Thus, consumers should be wary when purchasing food products, since “organic” does not necessarily equal superior food quality."
Source #3, here appears to be a paper written in conjunction with a student, and no indication that it has gone through any peer review (a search on MEDLINE showed no results for this title), thus meaning it does not meet MEDRS. Again, ironically, this source does not support the suggestion that organic food is healthier, noting, "However, there are still far too few studies completed to establish a consensus regarding the health benefit of organic foods."
Source #4, here does not support the statement that there is a health difference between organic and conventional, noting "While many studies demonstrate these qualitative differences between organic and conventional foods, it is premature to conclude that either food system is superior to the other with respect to safety or nutritional composition. Pesticide residues, naturally occurring toxins, nitrates, and polyphenolic compounds exert their health risks or benefits on a dose-related basis, and data do not yet exist to ascertain whether the differences in the levels of such chemicals between organic foods and conventional foods are of biological significance."
Source #5, here does not even speak to health effects (speaking only of environmental and economic issues), and I cannot tell if it has been peer reviewed either.
These sources therefore either do not meet our standards as WP:MEDRS or do not support the cited statements, failing WP:V. I have therefore removed them, yet again. Yobol ( talk) 05:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The best argument for organic food is the cancer argument, but this argument has been omitted from the article, even where it as cited, such as the notable argument between the ACS and the President's Panel on Cancer. Although the presidential panel avoided the word "organic", it clearly promoted "food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers", which by definition includes organic foods, and which is clearly relevant enough for inclusion in this article. It was entered in the article with several goods citations (including primary and secondary sources). It's complete removal indicates a bias in the editors of this article. The strongest argument for organic foods is almost omitted (with only the mention of the ACS official position that not enough study has taken place to be able to determine an answer, and this is hidden at the end of a "consumer safety" section), while the debunking of much weaker (and therefore irrelevant) arguments is covered extensively. Gregcaletta ( talk) 10:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better to remove the whole section "Health and Safety". First, scientifically it is a battleground. Second, the massive food industry will weigh in with their money, paying for scientific research that has a WP:COI. Third, the exclusion of sources, giving undue weight to the medical side of the story. The Banner talk 13:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
You are making very specific claims about a conspiracy with absolutely zero evidence. For health claims we use MEDRS. Your objections sound like special pleading. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
23:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
So, if I finds books supporting that organic food is safe and healthy, they are allowed? According to Yobol restore; books aren't indexed in pubmed, so not finding them there is not a reason to remove. The Banner talk 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
TheBanner appears interested in placing POV tags on this article, but this Talk page does not detail specific POV issues and how they can be remedied. A tag like the POV tag needs active Talk page discussions that provide specific detail about the concerns and how they can be remedied, so that the problems can be addressed and the tags removed. This is especially true for an article-wide tag, which indicates that an editor is concerned that the entire article has significant POV problems. TheBanner pointed to the
WP:MEDRS and
Removal of "Health and Safety" section discussions, but they do not provide specific, actionable detail about the apparent POV concerns. The WP:MEDRS section discusses which sourcing guidelines should be applicable, and the Removal of "Health and Safety" section discussion has wandered into off-topic territory. There are no active Talk page discussions to support the POV tags. If the tags are replaced, please open a Talk page discussion and provide specific detail about actionable concerns. Cheers...
Zad
68
04:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
You added text specifically saying homeopathy is effective despite that being contrary to the most reliable secondary sources. Do you deny that? IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)The article has been locked down due to the above dispute, and the last alternative version to the current, locked version contains the following paragraph. This version is one which I edited to restore a valid viewpoint and restore a POV balance to the article, BUT also changed from previous versions to clearly state who holds the position, dates, and other information to allow readers to draw their own conclusions from the data. I also made some small edits to other paragraphs to remove unnecessarily POV adjectives and create more neutral language. I removed two sentences sourced to dead links, these changes were also reverted. There appear to be no arguments presented above other than an insistence that MEDRS must be followed in this instance. However, that is an argument that makes no sense, as the MEDRS literature is already covered in the article and their dismissal of the organic food industry is well-discussed. As one the very core issues in the organic food industry is this very health and safety concern, to not discuss it at all in the article is to have the article have serious NPOV problems. It is my position that it is simplistic in the extreme to provide only the negative view without the positive view as well, and MEDRS is not an appropriate limitation on sources, though, clearly, such sources are, of course, preferred when available. Therefore, I recommend restoring the following paragraph, or, in the alternative, a similar expression of the concern raised by supporters of organic food, with reliable sources per WP:RS. Montanabw (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
However, a 1989 peer-reviewed study sponsored by the [[Natural Resources Defense Council]] identified an association between consumption of pesticide residues from conventionally grown food and cancer risk.<ref name=Sewell>{{cite journal |author=Sewell B, Whyatt R |title=Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in Our Children's Food |journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |year=1989 |month=February |pmid= |doi= |url=http://docs.nrdc.org/health/files/hea_11052401a.pdf }}</ref> A 2012 risk assessment estimated that cancer benchmark levels in preschool children were exceeded for several toxic substances and recommended consumption of organic foods as one strategy for reducing risk. <ref name=Vogt>{{cite journal |author=Vogt R, Bennett D, Cassady D, Frost J, Ritz B, Hertz-Picciotto I |title=Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment |journal=Environmental Health |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages= |year=2012 |month=November |pmid=23140444 |doi= |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23140444 }}</ref> Proponents of organic food express concern that children are being exposed to hazardous levels of pesticides in fruits and vegetables. In 1989, NRDC estimated that 5,500 to 6,200 of the current population of American preschoolers may eventually get cancer "solely as a result of their exposure before six years of age to eight pesticides or metabolites commonly found in fruits and vegetables." This estimate was based on conservative risk assessment procedures, which indicate that greater than 50% of an individual's lifetime risk of cancer from exposure to carcinogenic pesticides used on fruit takes place during the first six years of life.<ref name=Sewell/> In a study conducted on children and adults in California, consumption of conventionally grown foods was associated with excessive cancer benchmark levels for all children for DDE, which was primarily sourced from dairy, potatoes, meat, freshwater fish, and pizza.<ref name=Vogt>{{cite journal |author=Vogt R, Bennett D, Cassady D, Frost J, Ritz B, Hertz-Picciotto I |title=Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment |journal=Environmental Health |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages= |year=2012 |month=November |pmid=23140444 |doi= |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23140444 }}</ref>
Please discuss below. Montanabw (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Montana, first, let me commend you at starting this conversation. Honestly we're at an impasse here if there is still an insistence on using non-
WP:MEDRS sources to try to support medical claims in articles. Having those claims carefully couched and qualified and attributed does not, in my evaluation, get past the
WP:MEDRS requirement. I'd suggest we take it to
dispute resolution as a start, because I don't see anybody here being convinced yet by the arguments of others. The center of the argument appears to be: Are the
WP:MEDRS sourcing requirements in effect for medical claims in non-medical articles? I believe the Wikipedia consensus is Yes. We have 10 days until the article is unprotected, and we could be well along in making progress at
WP:DR by then.
Zad
68
20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
DRN? Why not just ask at WT:MEDRS. People seriously want to include non-MEDRS sources about cancer risks? If so, an RfC is easy: "Should we use non-MEDRS sources to make claims about what causes cancer". IRWolfie- ( talk) 01:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) It sounds like you are proposing that because this is an article about food, and not some medical topic, WP:MEDRS should not apply. However, the WP:MEDRS guideline, which was promoted to guideline status four years ago, is not limited to articles about straight medical topics. From the guideline:
Clearly the guideline is not limited to biomedical information only in medical articles, but "in articles," meaning, all Wikipedia articles. Food is eaten by humans and affects human health. The claims that were being proposed here were clearly biomedical claims, and WP:MEDRS applies.Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.
Zad
68
04:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)? IRWolfie- ( talk) 16:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that blanket application of the secondary source rule in this case creates a systemic POV problem, and whilst I appreciate your point about the particular article in question in MMR being pointed to, it was only illustrative. I can see no compelling argument to not use some selected primary articles to illustrate that the view is held by academics, who have produced peer-reviewed articles on the subject. At the moment, the article reads to me as if the only people who believe some of the points of contention discussed are uninformed members of the public, which, from the existence of primary research appears not to be the case. In fact, for at least one section, the point is specifically made in the cited review article that too little evidence exists to make a firm judgement - a clear cut case IMHO to use some primary sources, with appropriate caveats and balance.
In general, the article is full of slightly dubious statements, mostly tipping towards the anti-organic stance, like commenting on the naming convention to say that calling food organic or non-organic is "technically inaccurate and completely inappropriate when applied to farming, the production of food, and to foodstuffs themselves" without any sort of citation.
With no particular view on whether organic is or is not a desirable trait in food, this article does appear to reflect a clear bias, which judicious use of primary sources, with appropriate copy editing and balance, would do much to correct. OwainDavies ( about)( talk) edited at 14:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. Here's the next question: Are we at an impasse? Has anyone changed their position from where they were several weeks ago? We have three or four primary editors and two or three other editors discussing this issue (endlessly) and I don't see anyone's position changing. And the neutral party here is getting accused of bias! Is there any place for a compromise on this issue? The organic food movement is not "fringe" even if it is not "conventional" and therefore, is there a place to carefully outline ALL more-or-less "mainstream" (NRDC is hardly a fringe group, and Monsanto, which funds research to "prove' their products are harmless, isn't exactly NPOV) views with the best sourcing available for each? Montanabw (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's your Monsanto info: evidence that Monsanto Corporation funds these studies that "debunk" organic food benefits. And, also add Cargill. There are other sources confirming the funding bias. There are also peer reviewed sources on the health risks of pesticides that can meet the MEDRS standard that are being completely ignored, see also [3], [4] and Please don't tell me that a Presidential Report from NIH and another one won't pass muster here! Montanabw (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Passing comment (not watching this page): The disputed text does some unfortunate WP:PEACOCKing of the study. See WP:MEDMOS on writing style. It would be important point out the age of the study (You want us to highlight a study from 1989? Really? Twenty-three years ago?), but the stuff about it being "peer-reviewed" and details like where the people live, is inappropriate. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)