Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:51, 24 November 2012

	Organic food was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 11, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 22, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 15, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment Low‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Agriculture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Horticulture and Gardening Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

in reference to the preceding

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)

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)

NPOV

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)

Recent changes

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)

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)

Cancer

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

WP:MEDRS

Why are the sources for this article measured along Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Organic food is, as the name says, food, not a medicin. The Banner _talk 18:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources used for medical information, in any article, is governed by WP:MEDRS ("specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article"). Since the section you are adding the information to the "Nutritional value and taste" section is obviously health related, so sources used in this section need to meet WP:MEDRS. The source you want to use, published here has multiple problems. The journal is not MEDLINE indexed, which is a huge red flag for medical journals. The journal's stated scope is "the areas of cell biology, plant pathology and physiology, genetics, classical botany, and ecology, to practical agricultural applications"; it specifically is not a journal that published medical information. Using a journal that is out of its stated scope to rebut information from journals that are in medical journals is not appropriate. Yobol (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not very likely that an agricultural journal will be indexed by a medical index. So it is blatent nonsense.

Secondly, Medline is an American index. This agricultural journal is from the United Kingdom. To my opinion. you try to hijack this article by focusing on the medical side of it, instead of the food side of it. The Banner _talk 02:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have informed Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Food and drink of your stance and hope to get some input of them. The Banner _talk 02:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Food and drink articles
• High-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• C-Class Environment articles
• Low-importance Environment articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Agriculture articles
• Mid-importance Agriculture articles
• WikiProject Agriculture articles
• B-Class Horticulture and gardening articles
• Mid-importance Horticulture and gardening articles
• WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening articles