Talk:Organic food/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  QAI logo and reference removal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  organic pesticides 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A map-based community-input organic food locator - RealFoodFinder.com 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wild Harvested 

message: The edit made by User:Jav43 on March 2, 2007 included:
* Changing section title "Critisism" to "Evidence of the harm caused by organic food"
* Adding 4 paragraphs from Organic farming, which contained 1 reference (compare this with the 22 references in the "Evidence of the benefits of organic food".
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,
* The "Food Safety" subsection shows that conventional food contains many more pesticide residues, but that the effects of these aren't a big deal.
* The "Sustainability" subsection says that any improvements in energy efficiency aren't due to organic practices but by crop rotation, and that some pesticides that are approved for organic farms are dangerous (like rotenone, although these pesticides are used rarely).
* And the last two "Organic Food is expensive", and 'Organic food has "sold out"' subsections aren't so much harm as they are critisism related.
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)
replies: text: you should slow down a bit, i think i agree with some of the moving around of sections from organic food, but please discuss first, and can you discuss at the bottom of the page rather than continue same age old thread, that might esily be overlooked. also actually these articles used to be a lot more pro organic and have become a lot more balanced in recent months. you can check it out be looking at an version from say october 2006trueblood 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's great that these articles have become more balanced recently, but that doesn't mean they are perfect.  I do think "Organic Foods" needs balance in the discussion of organic farming practices.  Since organic farming has its own article, I don't see why all discussion of organic farming is not simply moved there. Jav43 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How organic food is grown is relevant to why people buy it - and also why it's an area of the food industry that has been growing much faster than the rest of it. The information that's here should stay - it's a good summary of why organic food is made in the first place - but I agree that a decent amount of it could be copied over to Organic farming and would be relevant there too but phrased differently. JabberWok 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then this article could simply mention that some people prefer organic food due to the ways in which it is grown, and refer to the 'organic farming' article for that topic.  Basically, I have two problems here.  I don't see the need for duplicate information.  More importantly, the discussion of organic farming practices in the 'organic food' article is entirely one-sided.  Why not refer people to the more complete article, 'organic farming', rather than discussing organic farming practices here? Jav43 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: to talk about a totally one-sided article after making a change like Changing section title "Critisism" to "Evidence of the harm caused by organic food is a bit thin, how about making some little improvements to the article before making sweeping changes to get it closer to your idea of balanced. trueblood 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the title of the 'pro' section?  "Evidence of the benefits of organic food" - I simply copied that and made it negative.  Such is balance.  Jav43 20:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I got reverted when I tried making little improvements to make the article more balanced - which is why I made the larger change of moving the "organic farming" discussion.  Jav43 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could supply papers from peer-reviewed journals that show "evidence of harm" by organic farming practices then I would sympathize with your efforts. That's exactly where I recommend you start. JabberWok 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's exactly my point.  This article isn't supposed to be about organic farming practices and shouldn't be about organic farming practices.  It should not host this discussion at all.  Jav43 05:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about organic food, why people buy it, and why it was given a legal definition in many countries around the world. It attempts to explain the existence of organic food in the first place and this article gives a succinct discussion of those reasons. JabberWok 21:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid additions from [[Organic farming]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Organic standards being rolled back by supermarkets 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Opposition to organic produce - social impact? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I just removed another spam link from the article. Cheers MidgleyDJ 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added link to DMOZ. MidgleyDJ 00:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  BBC Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Undid essay 

message: 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)
thread_title:  British Library Food Stories website 

message: http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/foodstories/index.html (Jenwren83 10:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Library Food Stories 

message: Please get rid of these two sections.  It's a poor way to divide up the article.  
— Omegatron 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  arguments in favor and opposition 

message: The following sentence appeared in the article:
::"Numerous scientists — including Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore — believe organic farming poses a far greater threat than conventional farming to the environment and to wildlife." 
:with reference of: 
::Sustainable Forestry: Patrick Moore & The Future of Things - August 8, 2004 http://www.greenspiritstrategies.com/D90.cfm
If you go to the web page the relevant quote is:
::"I believe that much of the environmental movement’s policy today is ’unsensible’.
::For example, the call to go back to organic farming - it’s just nonsensical.
::If we give up the advances in agriculture; fertilizers, chemicals, and genetics, it would mean that we’d have to use and vast amount more land to grow the food for the 6 billion people.
::This would mean cutting down more forest to get that additional land."
I thus removed the sentence for a couple reasons:
# He didn't say anything about wildlife, 
# or conventional farming
# And most importantly his opinion reflects statements already made in the article - that is, organic farms may have less yield than conventional farms although this is disputed. JabberWok 23:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quotes are generally good to have in articles, even if they reiterate something that is already spelled out in prose.  It's usually good to make clear who feels a certain way.  With Patrick Moore you'll have to point out when he said that though, and his relationship with Greenpeace at the time (he is now a critic of Greenpeace). — Omegatron 23:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patrick Moore sentence removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  organic food less sustainable than conventional food?? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weasel words? 

message: 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):
# Perhaps use the "Show Preview" button when you are making edits, and then after you have made all the many changes you like, only then hit the "Save Page" button. 10 small edits could easily just be 1 big one (and thus easier for editors to deal with).
# When making references, try to use citation templates.
# Also, see Wikipedia's policy on citing sources.  Personal interviews, personal addresses, and the like are not acceptable references.  Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, needs to have verifiable references.  That is also why there is no citation template for personal interviews.
Thanks. JabberWok 01:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted Edits by 209.161.227.5 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I made the edits to incorporate better facts about organic from the source and remove flagrant abuse by opponents of organic farming 

message: Nsorensen 09:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I undid the change made by a Monsanto representative on pesticides and farmers 

message: 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. 
* many statements require references, particularly those tagged with "citation needed"
* reference style are not uniform
* external links require cleanup
* images requiring fair-use rationale
* "Legal definition" section requires tone cleanup, as it sounds like an instruction for how to apply for organic food label
* "Motivations" section is completely not referenced
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, OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article no longer holds GA standard and therefore delisted. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps (on hold) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  looks like someone had some fun? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  environmental impact 

message: fail to see the interest to the article trueblood 14:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: 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)
replies: text: it is only in english that organic farming is called organic and not bio or ecological farming, the term comes not from organic as in organic chemistry but from the notion of the farm as an organism, is in biodynamics. maybe there was also a hint of vitalism in the choice of the word. do not confuse it with organic, that is carbon based chemistry. most pesticides are organic in that sense that they are carbon based. maybe the origin of the term needs an explanation, but maybe better in the article on organic farming.trueblood 10:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Organic food is called that because it grows by itself -- without outside help...  this of course is only partly true, since compost, water, etc. are added, but the point is, it grows on its own.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarslantern (talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It is unfortunate that the term has come to be used this way, but not really all that incorrect.  The word 'organic' had meanings before organic chemistry came along, and it's from these roots that the current usage arose.  The battle is lost -- get over it.  If you want to do a write-up on the etymology, it would be a welcome inclusion, but there's no controversy here. --Randall Nortman (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No discussion of the term organic 

message: 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  and  ? --Enantiodromos 21:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had exactly the same reaction, not even an hour after you posted this, and I popped over to the talk page to see if anybody else had discussed it.  What a coincidence.  I have tagged it with your suggestions, and added  as well. --Randall Nortman 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i'd be happy with deleting the section, maybe the history section could be moved up to take it's place.trueblood 14:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Uncomfortable with Motivation Section 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Logo organic.gif 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV-check 

message: 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
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
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)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with File:EU organic farming logo.svg 

message: 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)
replies: text: The health effects of farm workers from using pesticides is not "tangential" to an article on organic food. The harmful effects of pesticides on the environment and on farm workers are both common justifications for switching to organic foods. Please take a look at these Google Books results, which clearly demonstrate that pesticides' effects on producers are regularly discussed in the literature on organic food. — Mesoderm (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at those results, most do not talk about the two together (organic food and health issues with farmworkers), but I digress.  The information would appear to be most appropriate in other articles (say organic farming) rather than organic food.  This article should be about the food itself; discussion about farming techniques or dangers of pesticides should be left to other articles, no? Yobol (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you make a very good point. Organic farming would be a better place to discuss this, with a very brief (1-2 sentence) summary of it here in the section on Organic Farming. -- — Mesoderm (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved material to organic farming talk page. Yobol (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Probably deserves a section that discusses the question of what are the physical differences versus the political/philosophical differences between "artificial"/synthetic ingredients and tools.  On one end are certain pesticides which are very complex chemicals not found in nature. On the other end many modern fertilizers such as calcium oxide (or lime) and ammonia (or dung) are chemically identical to the active ingredients in organic treatments - except for concentration and mechanical particle properties which make modern fertilizer more suitable for application by automated machinery. Note should be given as to how over application of organic fertilizer such as dung can have similar environmental poisoning effects as more modern fertilizers. Finally it should note that even some complex pesticides produced synthetically for mass production are in fact chemically identical to the active agents in natural pesticides such as orange peels.
(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)
thread_title:  Pesticides and farm workers 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is from a scientific review; until there is a newer source that contradicts it, there is no need to use the past tense.  Almost all sources say the same about the public perception about safety. Yobol (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Problems 

message: 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)
replies: text: Clearly once "weight" has been stated then this sentence needs have its source cited. Otherwise we are left wondering ,"Who has weighted the evidence with such a result. On the face of it this sentence appears to be uncheckable for accuracy by the naive reader. And as such needs to be modified or removed. 124.170.37.40 (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  HUGE PROBLEMS 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please review our guideline for finding appropriate sources for medical claims.  We should be using reviews of the literature, not primary literature like this, and are explicitly prohibited from using primary literature to "debunk" the results of the review (in this case, saying organic food is more healthy) as you are doing here.  Please find an appropriate source, such as a peer-reviewed review article published in the medical literature. Yobol (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Study from Newcastle 

message: Came across this article by chance, but note several significant problems:
* Much of the Environmental Impact section is probably better either incorporated into the Organic farming article or removed entirely; this amount of detail is definitely not needed in this article
*I understand why it would pertain more to organic farming, but I think that environmental impact is one of, if not the most important reasons why some people are attracted to organic food, next to maybe the health concerns.  At least for me, that is the main reason I want to eat more organic food.  The environmental impact of organic food vs. monoculture food should be included in both articles in my opinion.Tannerbk (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a bit of Googling and I agree, the QLIF report has been given undue weight. I looked it up and the "study" is not peer reviewed. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or lacking meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. I think a study that is not peer reviewed lacks editorial oversight and should be removed. They arrive at a predetermined conclusion. The following three links are really intresting: skepdic.com and dailymail.co.uk and senseaboutscience.org. I will remove the QLIF report. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. Wasbeer 11:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people claim organic food helps with cancer, even though the ACS says there is no proof whatsoever. Should this be included in the article? Wasbeer 18:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: I made some modifications to this section. The main problems were:
*Citing individual studies. Particularly innapropriate was citing a study published last year which has been cited a total of two times; this study analyzed the bias or poor academic practices of claims about organic nutritional value put forth by organizations with a vested financial interest in organic foods.  Within the wikipedia article, this reference was used as the basis for the claim that "consumers are wasting their money if they are seeking to buy organic food for higher nutrient content." The lack of academic rigor in that logical jump makes my head hurt. In a field which is developed enough to the point where there are 10s of 1000s of studies, it is rarely appropriate to cite individual studies directly in a wikipedia article (especially obscure, recent ones) because the picking-and-choosing involved in doing so (and the proceeding analysis of them) in effect becomes a form of original research. 
*Conflating a lack of a clear finding of nutritional benefits with definitive proof of a finding of no nutritional benefits. These are not the same thing. Oy. If you know anything about research methodology you know these are not the same thing. Maybe I'll come back and write more about this later.
*Selection of literature. The section had a very clear academic bias (and right now, other sections of the article are somewhat biased in voice but not so much in citation. There should be more "proponents of" for some of them) in a field that has seen thousands and thousands of conflicting studies in both directions, some stacked by interests vested and (the conventional agriculture lobby has its hands in this debate pie as much as the organic lobby) and some not at all, measuring thousands of different things in effect, and using methodological practices from solid to awful. Even with all these things, sometimes a field has a clear scientific consensus. However, it could hardly be said that there is a scientific consensus on this matter. Even the authors of the 2009 FSA article stress that there is a lot of work left to be done. But for now, because its so fuzzy, this article should also not advise people to pull out their credit cards and go buy organic, nor should it promise that they'll be just as healthy without it.
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)
replies: text: Several problems, including calling literature reviews "individual studies". I would suggest reading literature review again so that you can tell what a literature review is.  I do agree that the one paper you singled out (which is a review) does have a very editorial/opinion like tone and will remove it for now, though.  It can probably be introduced in another section, but probably not appropriate here at this time.  I'm not sure what an "academic bias" is; if it is meant that there is too much emphasis on the academic studies, then that is an intentional bias caused by our guidelines including WP:MEDRS.  I agree that we need more discussion about the poor lack of quality in the area of nutrition evaluation, and will be adding that soon. Yobol (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

text: We use reliable sources for medical claims, which would be review articles, not random google search results to source our articles.  If you have articles in mind that meet the criteria in that link, please present them so that we can incorporate them.  In the meantime, discussion about organic farming belongs on that page, not here. Yobol (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutritional Value and Taste 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Organic food" is not a technical term but a "fill in the blank" term.  Political term?  Legal term? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  **this article should be marked for deletion** 

message: 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)
replies: text: The USDA sets terms for what is called organic in the US (see here).  I see no particular suggestion to improve wording or sources to discuss. We already describe the different meanings of the word "organic" in the article, so I do not see how this could be confusing to anyone (in fact, the average reader would probably think of this use of the word "organic" before any other such as the description of the chemistry discipline. Yobol (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  in reference to the preceding 

message: I removed the comment 
:The terms "organic farming" or "organic food" can not be considered scientifically meaningful definitions, despite the efforts of some to make others believe they are so. At best the term "organic farming" describes a broad concept of attempting to farm sustainably, at worst it is no better than a cheap political or marketing stunt.
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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: I concur with your assessments and appreciate the work you put into this. The sources either do not meet standards or do not actually contain the information which they are purported to reference. I hope what you did here inspires other people to consider the quality of their sources.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: The strongest argument for "organic" food is that consumers are willing to pay higher prices for food with "organic" branding. The cancer argument can hardly be strongest if it's based on a source which doesn't mention organic food. I just tracked down the panel's last annual report; it doesn't even mention pesticides or fertilizers, let alone organic food. bobrayner (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Presidential Panel recommended "food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers". That is a direct quote. It's not OR that organic foods are grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers, and foods that are not labelled "organic" almost always are. The report also points out that "less than 2% of chemicals on the market have actually been tested for carcinogenicity". This is clearly a central argument that people promoting organic foods use and, unlike the other arguments they use, this one hasn't been disproven, and yet it's the only argument not mentioned in the article. Mr G (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely if the point is so important you can actually find a WP:MEDRS compliant source that actually uses the words "organic food" in it at least once. Yobol (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I did find several sources that were worth mentioning but they were removed from the article. Mr G (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

text: If there is no evidence I'm not sure how it is the best argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer 

message: 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)
replies: text: It depends. Do you think agricultural journals reliable for saying what causes cancer? Yes or no. Do you think adding a synthesis is a good idea? Yes or no. (please stop with the Monsanto conspiracy theories, you were asked for evidence, otherwise stop it) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no hard and fast thing called "proof".  There is "evidence."  I have evidence.  You are twisting my words.  Some evidence is better than other evidence, and what WP does is outline what is in the two lanes on either side of the middle of the road, but considers stuff that drifts over the fog line as WP:FRINGE.  Here, we just have info on one side of the road, and not the other.  "Mainstream" science denied the tobacco-cancer link for decades.  "Mainstream" science also once asserted with great certainty that the earth was the center of the universe.  Montanabw(talk) 23:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I asked for your misinformed rant about tobacco cancer and the "evils" of science. I asked a specific question. Do you think agriculture journals are reliable for saying what causes cancer. Yes or no. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

text: "motherearthnews", "The Cornucopia Institute". Are you serious. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For a journalistic exposé that Monsanto and Cargill fund "studies" to debunk the dangers of pesticide use, absolutely! Let's also add reports from Huffington, and a discussion of methodological flaws from CBS News.  My point is that your so-called "perfect" studies are as loaded with propaganda and bias as something from Greenpeace.  Peer-reviewed journals in fields other than medicine have much to offer, particularly when they have unbiased research that can't be traced to agribusiness. Montanabw(talk) 23:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are using shoddy sources and claim this indicates anything. So what if EWG complained? Do you think they are remotely trustworthy for anything? Do you think a partisan group which isn't publishing peer reviewed material is somehow more reliable than the actual peer reviewed material (in a relevant journal that is)? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's reverse this:  Do you think Monsanto and Cargill are "remotely trustworthy" for anything that prevents a cut into their profit margin? If you really think you can believe that they have the "truth", then shall we discuss pro-corporate bias? And don't you think that exposing peer-reviewed research as corporate-funded is not relevant?  "Peer-reviewed" does not equal "gospel from God and thus correct."  Even the 2006 study cited in this article (I just finished skimming the actual article) states the limits to their review and urges more research.  So yes, if a "partisan" group (Monsanto OR NRDC) points out flaws and errors in the other side's work, isn't that what NPOV is all about?  Showing both sides, explaining the quality of the evidence, and giving the reader balanced information with which to draw their own conclusions? I ask you again:  Are two reports from the NIH also "shoddy sources"?   (And Wolfie, did you REALLY call psychotherapy a "pseudoscience" as is alleged in that RFC going on?  Yes or no...) Montanabw(talk) 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't using monsanto.com as a source. What monsanto funded source are you referring to. Point it out specifically so I can have a look at it. Did I call psychotherapy a pseudoscience? No I didn't, what the hell are you talking about, and what bearing does it have here? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I think any credibility you had just went out the window by defending yourself using those sources. Seriously there are peer reviewed review articles that examine pesticide use and cancer, why are you resorting to ones that have no hope in hell of being used. Your anti science approach is not really helpful either, mainstream science is why we know the earth is not the centre of the universe. How about this , it says that "consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria." Haven't look inside in any detail, but surely you would be better off using these sources to base your argument on rather than motherearthnews. AIRcorn (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable source? With this quote: Studies were heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present.? The Banner talk 00:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is an accurate summary of current studies, then what is the issue? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ask me a review detailing its limitations in the abstract is a pretty good indication that it is reliable. AIRcorn (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

text: The claim that conventional agricultural methods lead to cancer while organic farming does not is a medical claim and therefore comes under MEDRS.  Indeed Monsanto and other companies fund studies, but the reliability of these studies is how they are received by the scientific community, not who funded them.  We can always find isolated studies whose findings contradict mainstream thinking and we normally exclude them unless we can establish that they are noteworthy, in which case secondary sources will explain the degree to which they are accepted.  TFD (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Every claim that "something" causes cancer, can be dismissed straight away. At best you can say that that "something" gives a higher risk at cancer. But you should not lock the health claim on the risk of cancer, as there are far more factors involved in "healthy food" than the presence of "bad things". (sorry, not gonna try to find the right names) There are a lot of substances just working on the natural defenses of a person, thus enhancing the ability to fight off nasty diseases as the common cold and the flu. The Banner talk 22:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

text: BTW the recent study by the "Stanford researchers" which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine and is used as a source that organic food is no more nutritious or safe, does not appear to meet MEDRS either.  It is not a peer-re viewed report, but an article written for a doctors' magazine.  And its conclusions have not been substantiated, although they have been widely reported in the media.  TFD (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, what? Annals of Internal Medicine is one of the most prestigious medical journals, having an Impact factor around 16 (placing it in the top 5 of all general medical journals, in the same league as BMJ, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine), is clearly peer reviewed and MEDLINE indexed.  Your assessment of this journal could not be more off base. (Doctor's magazine? Seriously?) Yobol (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I just briefly glanced at the magazine.  They provide a variety of types of articles, and has you point out this report was peer-reviewed.  But I wonder if this is missing the point.  According to "Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999", there have been significant reductions in the nutritional value of vegetables.  "We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content."  TFD (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest following the citations through, the first one states that there is insufficient evidence that there is nutritional differences. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: True, they say that, Wolfie. But they also say that it is likely not to be caused by how you grow, but by what you grow. Ergo, this source is useless for any healthclaim. The Banner talk 11:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be assuming that there is something we should be saying about health claims. If the sources (and the MEDRS ones specifically) say not enough evidence, then that's what we should say. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break