Talk:Organic Consumers Association

message: The topic is an organization focused on an important issue, including its advocacy in that regard.  That is good, and important, but that importance is not license to cut & paste the screed from their website here in Wikipedia.  In fact, from an advocacy standpoint, it comes across as shrill and marginalizes their message.  ENeville 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absent any input, I removed the cut & pasted material.  I endeavored to replace it, but couldn't find much third party info on OCA. ENeville 21:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut & Paste Not Cool 

message: I question WP:NPOV here. The extensive list of campaigns suggests a member of the Organic Consumer's Association is tasked with keeping it up to date. While I would not want to copy the text of the rationalwiki page on the Organic Consumer's Association verbatim, some of their criticisms seem to have merit and could be included in a WP:Criticism section. I don't have enough experience to make this call, so I'm putting this here for discussion. I'm happy to prepare a draft of the proposed addition if this seems reasonable and post it here for advance consideration.
Wurdeh (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:Criticism page that you linked to specifically says that editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism. The fact that the OCA's campaigns are listed here does not mean that anyone is tasked with keeping it up to date. As a consumer advocacy organization, the OCA's existence is centered around its campaigns. The rationalwiki page is laughably biased and looks like it was written by Monsanto PR people, so copying their text verbatim would definitely be a violation of WP:NPOV. I wouldn't think a draft is necessary, but if there are specific criticisms that you think should be included in this article, please be sure they are reliably sourced and try to incorporate them into the article rather than making a separate section.  Gobōnobō + c 10:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Cleaning this up has been a long-term project for me for a while, so if you draft something up I'll be glad to pitch in. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it true the OCA is "anti-vax"? I can't find a reliable source but it's pretty damning an accusation if true. Sorry I forgot my password again... ugh. 81.97.100.208 (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms missing 

message: This article reads like an ad for the Organic Consumers Association.
For one thing, there are lots of value-laden words thrown around in general. Who gets to decide what is a "pressing issue" or a "morally (healthier)" choice? 
For another thing, lines like "However these foods are not labeled, leaving consumers unable to make informed decisions about their purchases." are direct political commentary.  I personally am against GMO labeling for reasons like this:  Food and Farm Discussion Lab It's OK if you disagree, but don't treat political opinion as fact.
For another thing, to the best of my knowledge, "smaller farmers who are currently being charged with patent infringement by Monsanto" is a myth.  Here are a few references I found indicating that this is not true:
NPR; Monsanto's website; Royal Commission on Genetic Modification; GMO Answers 
Also given Wikipedia's anti-pseudoscience stance, the fact that Organic Consumers Association appears to be pro-homeopathy should give one pause:  Organic Consumers Association search for "homeopathic".  Looking further, they also appear to support 9/11 truthers  and fluoride conspiracies. 
Oh, I just found an interesting article about the Organic Consumers Association and its industry backing and magical thinking here: Biofortified
I suspect that there are other problems with this page, but I don't know what they are.  I'm not super into Wiki editing- I came to this page because I honestly wanted to learn about the Organic Consumers Association.  Lately I've had nothing but good experiences with Wikipedia, so I was disappointed.
Nonnymonster (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you suggest what you want to change exactly? The OCA is entitled to their own statements, even if you disagree with them. prokaryotes (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a pretty old conversation that I let be even when I first watchlisted this page. The editor hasn't been active since the post, so I doubt there would be any response. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much like an ad, ignores counterarguments

message: This should probably be referenced here at some point. SmartSE (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting article; it also references an article by David Gorski about the USRTK.  I'm not familiar with how reliable TheDailyBeast is other than what its entry in WP:RSP says.  We don't have an article on USRTK... Pinging:  who is very familiar with the anti-vax space and funding.  Thanks for finding this! ---Avatar317(talk) 01:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to USRTK