Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:39, 28 January 2015

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Organic food. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

	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. Dietary Supplements Top‑importance Organic food is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement Top This article has been rated as Top-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. 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 Mid‑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 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. 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. 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.

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 November 2012. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Organic Trade Association as a Source

The website referenced states that the OTA's purpose is as follows"

"The Organic Trade Association (OTA) is the membership-based business association for the organic industry in North America. OTA’s mission is to promote and protect organic trade to benefit the environment, farmers, the public, and the economy. OTA envisions organic products becoming a significant part of everyday life, enhancing people's lives and the environment.

OTA represents businesses across the organic supply chain and addresses all things organic, including food, fiber/textiles, personal care products, and new sectors as they develop. Over sixty percent of OTA trade members are small businesses."

As advocates for "Organic" businesses, they cannot serve as a reliable source for the statement that "Natural is not the same as organic". They are talking their book when they make statements of this type.

Formerly 98 (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case you should also silence the opponents... The Banner talk 02:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There nothing in the purpose that says "to misrepresent information." The fact that they are sre advocates is an issue of neutrality, rather than reliability. This is a pretty uncontroversial statement anyway. TFD (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy groups generally aren't considered reliable sources for content like this. If it were something that had a lower burden for weight, opinions from advocacy groups can be stated as such, but not in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Labels

Unfortunately, user:Formerly 98 is edit warring, engaging in unfriendly behaviour and whitewashing of inconvenient information. In fact he is edit warring over the following statement: Overall, the label "organic food" has more meaning than does the label "natural food."

It is not the first time that I have to complain that the article is seriously POV due to the permanent removals of any positive facts.

I admit that I reverted an unsourced statement, just to be able to add sources. But even with three sources it is straight removed. How many sources do tou want then, Formerly 98? Are even universities not trustworthy? The Banner talk 02:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Natural vs. Organic
2. Interpreting Food Labels: Natural versus Organic
3. Decoding Food Labels

OK, let's start by striking the personal attacks and accusations in violation of WP:GF and WP:TALK. When you have done that we can discuss the article. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Just start with explaining why it has to be removed in violation of WP:NPOV. The Banner talk 02:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Guys, the statement is far from controversial. There are several existing references that support it at the natural foods article. It's widely known that the organic label has at least some teeth to it whereas "natural" means almost nothing legally. Although I do not plan to spend a bunch of time amassing more references for the statement, it is obvious that the ledes of the two articles should mention each other, from an ontological standpoint, because in terms of critical thinking, if you cannot state why they are not the same thing, then you must ask why they aren't covered in one and the same article. Separate but linked articles ontologically means either (1) separate but related concepts or (2) an ontological error called content forking. Obviously in this instance, having separate articles is valid. Well OK then—state how they compare or contrast, and link their ledes accordingly. This is not all that subjective or complicated. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, if anyone tries to keep the ledes from mentioning, comparing, or contrasting each other, then I will just stick a {{distinguish}} hatnote, or some other relevant hatnote, above them. There will be critically minded hyperlinking either way. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

whatever is going on in the natural foods article is going on there. in this article, there is no content about in the body about difference in "meaning" (whatever that means) between the two, and sticking an unsourced, vague statement in the lead of this article makes no sense. of somebody wants to develop some well-sourced content in the body of this article about the difference in "meaning" then it might make sense to include that in the lead of this article, if it is important enough in the overall article. the WP:LEAD is just a summary of the article. the body comes first. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There are several issues with the proposed addition.

• The original source was by its own admission an advocacy group for organic food producers.
• The meaning of the proposed addition is not clear. What exactly is meant by the 'the term "organic" has more meaning that 'natural'"? Are you referring to how it was grown, statutory definitions, or differences in health implications? If the latter you will need a WP:MEDRS compliant source.
• Third, as Jytdog points out, the lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article.

Formerly 98 (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are well aware that there is a difference between "natural" and "organic" and there are laws in the U.S. about using the label "organic." Instead of pretending that you are unaware of the difference, just find a better source. TFD (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is what Banner is attempting to discuss. Here is a (very brief) blurb from the FDA on what the term natural means (http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/transparency/basics/ucm214868.htm) and here is what the USDA says about food products labeled as organic (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=organic-agriculture.html) as well as a brief commentary from a MEDLINE-indexed review (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4025038/). The United States' EPA also briefly discusses the meaning of organic here (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/food/organics.htm). Here is a specific page from the USDA comparing/contrasting various terms of this nature (e.g., natural, organic, cage-free, free-range, humane, etc.) http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateC&navID=NationalOrganicProgram&leftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPConsumers&description=Consumers&acct=nopgeninfo TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98, we are discussing food labels and the reliability of those labels. That has nothing to do with health claims and certainly not with the often misused WP:MEDRS. The Banner talk 11:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is not about health. This is about basic editing, namely WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, and WP:LEAD. If you want content in the article about the difference in labels, add sourced content to the body. If the resulting content rises to the importance that it should be in the lead, add a summary to the lead. Basic WP editing. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

For your info: Mr. Formerly 98 removed a sentence with three sources. Not with an explanation but with a warning that I can be blocked. The Banner talk 17:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

really, you think "organicisworthit.org" is a good source? come on. the nutrition.org and the tufts source seem pretty good. I think some content in the body like" "The food label "natural" does not mean the food is organic." Then it would be closely tied to the article. I will add that. and yes you were edit warring. hopefully this lays the matter to rest. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was an error on my part, I did not read carefully as you had described your edit as a reversion. So I apologize for that. On the other hand, your accusations of a "whitewash" (of what exactly?) remain on this page in violation of Talk page guidelines. Please correct this. Also please note that my comment that the addition of new material requires consensus was a second valid argument against your edit. You were repeatedly adding material that had been removed by two other editors. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up. The Banner talk 00:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Banner you have been asked several times to stop the personal attacks. I wasn't going to weigh in at ANI with difs, now I will do. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

Apparently the neutrality is disputed on this page. There is a discussion on WP:ANI#WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner that discusses it. The Banner accused other users of abusing WP:MEDRS to bias the article negatively by removing any content claiming that organic food has health benefits. Jytdog argued that the scientific community has decided that any health benefits from going organic may caused by various factors and therefore the article is neutral because it reflects the opinions from reliable sources. Clearly the neutrality of this article is disputed so I will be adding a {{neutrality}} template. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for opening a section. Please identify any reliable source per WP:MEDRS, that can be used to support a claim that organic food is healthier than conventionally produced food. If you can bring such a source I am sure we will gladly include it in the article. I do suggest that you actually read the article and the sources in it, and the Talk page discussion and archives. I'll leave the tag on for now, but if you don't come back with something substantial, source-wise, it will need to come off in a few days. Thanks again for opening a discussion. I await the sources! And by the way, the existence of a dissident editor does not mean that an article fails NPOV. Banner's position has not had consensus here. And it is not just me working on this page, as a glance through the Talk page and its archives will show; you are getting pretty much everything wrong in your characterization here. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed the flag as the basis of the challenge is a challenge to a Misplaced Pages policy. You might as well challenge the neutrality of the article based on an editor requiring that sources be added to statements. WP:MEDRS is Misplaced Pages policy. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

well, its a guideline, but a damn important one. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I would urge people to stop reverting in the meantime. Both sides of the argument have merits, it's not urgent, and hopefully we can discuss this without too much shouting. bobrayner (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Can we also discuss the application of WP:MEDRS on an article far more related to food and agriculture than to the medical world? Can we also discuss the scientific results and testing as according to Jytdog they are unreliable "due to the messiness of reality"? The Banner talk 23:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Mayo Clinic says: Organic regulations ban or severely restrict the use of food additives, processing aids (substances used during processing, but not added directly to food) and fortifying agents commonly used in nonorganic foods, including preservatives, artificial sweeteners, colorings and flavorings, and monosodium glutamate. Plus, I added the neutrality template not because I personally believe the article is biased, but because there was a disagreement already existing on its neutrality. I added it because the neutrality of this article is disputed. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

none of what you quote from Mayo says anything about an effect on health. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• We should remove the biased assertions from the lede that organic food isn't healthier and doesn't taste better, both of which are rather dubious and in any event present in Misplaced Pages's authoritative voice a conclusion of a disputed fact. It's fair to include them in a subsection about the medical community's response, if that is indeed the response. Inasmuch as this is an article about food, not medicine, it misapplies MEDRS to use it here — it makes as much sense as citing literature to proclaim whether Spanish food is healthier or better tasting than Italian. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Those statements are sourced to the best kind of sources available, per RS and MEDRS. See also Misplaced Pages:Controversial_articles#Raise_source_quality Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll add that lots of people bring very strong assumptions to this article. Please check them at the door, and deal with what reliable sources say. This article is the product of the good faith work of lots of people, following the spirit of WP's policies and guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Those sources aren't entirely apt, regardless of their quality. This seems to be a use of medical sources for non-medical statements, for certain about taste. Why would it be necessary in the lede to have a paragraph basically saying that organic food is bunk? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Our job is to summarize the scientific consensus (i.e., review articles) as reliable sources describe it. That's why you are seeing sentences as you describe, because that is the scientific consensus. There's no bias to that from an NPOV perspective. We generally present authoritative findings from such sources in Misplaced Pages's voice when dealing with assertions of fact at that level, so the things you mentioned above aren't really an issue when you base the content on the sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so you see the problem, right? Our job is to create an encyclopedia, not to summarize scientific consensus. Misplaced Pages does not generally speak in a scientific voice. That is perhaps inevitable in articles about science, but in articles about food it's downright silly to opine in a scientific voice as to whether one particular food is tastier than another. I don't see any chefs, food critics, or food writers sourced on that point, for what that's worth, and they are more authoritative than scientists on matters of food preference. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that when there are objectively measureable observables we are well within the purview of science, and our job is exactly to summarize the scientific consensus. We don't need expert opinion on "tastiness" like we do on the relative merits of Cubism. You simply put the food out without labeling which is conventional and which is organic, and ask people which they like better. If study after study of this type doesn't show any difference, then Thomas Keller's expert opinion is flying in the face of a directly observable fact. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The two go hand in hand as our job is to ascribe due WP:WEIGHT. Scientific consensus on a topic is about the highest degree of weight that can be given to something. There are many branches of science, so areas of food science for things such as taste would still fall to the experts on those fields (health for medical researchers, etc.). Chefs, etc. generally wouldn't be reliable sources as they're likely not using properly designed experiments to determine differences in taste. If views are pushed that are not supported by reliable scientific sources, they are generally considered WP:FRINGE (also see WP:PSCI) content and we don't give that any weight. That's why we summarize the scientific consensus so we satisfy NPOV as much as one could hope to. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Once science has spoken about what's tasty it doesn't matter what food people say? That's not how an encyclopedia works, or reality for what that's worth. Scientific consensus is perhaps the highest weight on matters within the scope of science, but assuredly not on matters outside the scope of science. To suggest that the entire food community is fringe if it doesn't agree with science is a rather extreme opinion. For what it's worth, and without (yet) checking sources, the weight of the food community probably agrees that everything else being equal food grown using organic standards is not tastier or superior to food grown using methods that do not qualify as organic. They would also say that everything else is not equal, that organic suppliers tend to be higher quality, but that large factory farms making lower quality product are beginning to go for organic certification, and that there are many other small high quality suppliers that don't care about the organic designation. That's a lot more relevant to the subject of organic food than a controlled lab experiment (or literature review of the same) testing whether people can tell the difference. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup, there's a lot of assumptions being made there, some of which are common misconceptions for those not yet familiar with the topic, but I would suggest reading the sources provided in the article for some background. You might be underestimating the scope of science from what it seems you're saying. Most things I could respond to would be rather forumy right now so I'll leave them be, but I will clarify that fringe was with regard to views contrary to the scientific consensus from a weight perspective. The "food community" would also be more of a question of what such a source would be reliable for. Those are two different things which go towards the nuance required when dealing with scientific content. If you're interested in proposing content, I'd suggest reading the talk page archives a bit as some topics have been covered rather extensively and then go ahead with content to discuss. To assess whether something is reliably sourced and is appropriately weighted, we need to have content to focus the discussion on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Somebody reverted my attempt to clarify that these claims are made from a scientific point of view rather than an encyclopedic one, so I have re-added the POV tag. Seriously, the notion that scientific consensus establishes matters of what tastes good is ridiculous. If you think that science trumps human perception you're pretty fringe. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't re-add the tag, it would be disruptive. What other kind of evidence for taste is there, something like this maybe? Alexbrn 06:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't remove the tag. Seriously, there is some weird editing going on here, crazy time on the encyclopedia. Evidence is not the encyclopedic standard, it is the weight of reliable sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

the new editors are treating "science" like it is some kind of fringe point of view. We humans have developed methods to investigate reality - to know if certain kinds of claims about the world around us, are true or false. Those tools are called "the scientific method". And yes we look to and cite the scientific literature to investigate questions about how organic food and conventional food may or may not be different, and whether or not they make people who eat them more or less healthy. Ditto, we use those tools to do experiments to see if people find any difference in taste. What other tools do the new editors propose be used - what field should we as editors consult -- to look for answers to those questions? I note that no one here has responded to my request for additional sources on which to generate new or different content. Please provide sources supporting your perspectives on organic food so we can discuss them. Without them, your claims are clearly your personal POV. It is fine to have a personal POV but it doesn't belong in WP and is no basis for tagging nor for generating content. This is exactly the problem that has led to the ANI. Jytdog (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is very useful to add the sources again. In the past, they were always brushed aside with the MEDRS-excuse. By the way: I still mis a reply on your own statement that scientific research is in basic unreliable "due to the messiness of reality". The Banner talk 14:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

not quite sure how to respond to that Banner. I am not asking people to add sources to the article, I'm just asking them to present them here (they can of course directly add them to the article if they want -- that is just not what I am asking) If editors want to change or introduce new content or claim that the article is biased, they need sources for the new/different content or showing that some perspective not represented here is as valid based on the same quality of sources. That is WP101. With regard to your question you mischaracterize what I said, which is that the science is too messy to support the kind of positive claims you have wanted to make. i have just been paraphrasing the first paragraphs here: Organic_food#Chemical_composition and here: Organic_food#Health_and_safety. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This "new editor" has been editing Misplaced Pages for seven years now, and knows a toxic dysfunctional editing environment when they see one. The weirdly condescending lecture about the value of science, the scientific method trumping other types of knowledge because it alone finds truth and reality, and other bla bla nonsense is a case in point. I have more productive things than to do battle with dogmatic science proponents, but the over-reliance of dubious, inapt medical citations in a food article like this is a strange, largely unencyclopedic point of view. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh? The article has plenty of non (hard) science content: terminology, law, economics, etc. I'm not sure what exactly is being proposed - is there some good source on the taste of organic food for example that would help? Alexbrn 20:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"new" to this discussion. no comment on how long you've been on WP nor what you have done. With regard to your experience, believe me, I have plenty of experience with people who parachute into controversial articles with strong personal opinions and zero sources. But I am sorry to see you go, if that is what you are choosing to do. If you choose to stay, I still look forward to hearing about you with regard to sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note - I just went looking for new sources myself and found a review from 2014 that was much more positive than reviews to date. Boy you guys could have had a field day had you actually gone and looked for sources and made me look like I was really biased. Anyway, I added content from it. That perspective remains an outlier in the literature, so the article hasn't completely flipped, but Banner should be happier. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I cannot speak for The Banner, but I not advocating a pro-organic food agenda. Rather, my point is that the scientific POV and attendant sourcing demands here are an inappropriate approach to a food article. This talk page has a wikiproject medicine template on top, asserting that organic food is a medical subject. Misplaced Pages has seen its share of WP:BATTLEs over articles seen as health-related, which perhaps explains the content problems here. I'm aware that there is an intersection between food and health claims about food, and certainly the scientific approach is appropriate when discussing those health claims. But that is not the primary notability of the subject. The organic food movement is only partly related to consumers' health concerns. As yet another analogy, people make health claims about blueberries as well. The nutrition and health aspects of blueberries are indeed treated in their own section, yet there is no need to add stilted language to the lede announcing that the evidence is insufficient to support claims that blueberries are healthy, or that claims that blueberries are tasty are unsupported by the evidence. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidemon I am glad you acknowledge that the health claims need MEDRS sourcing - that has been the crux of the problem. Health claim about blueberries are also subject to MEDRS! I don't think any reliable source would deny that eating blueberries is part of a healthy diet; saying that blueberries cure cancer (for example) is quite another thing. And really, please do read the sources we use in the article - there is paltry evidence that eating organic is healthier than eating conventional food. As you can imagine, organic "fans" have pushed for language the opposite; in my view those folks are the POV-pushers, bringing their assumptions to the table that organic "must" be healthier. I'd like to add that if you want to take a shot at writing the lead more elegantly I would be very open to that. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Win the day by adding the truth and getting topic banned for being disruptive? No thanks. My trust in this article and its main editors is gone. I have accepted by now that it is hopelessly POV and that you can get topic banned by pointing at that. Because that is what is happening. The Banner talk 15:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Banner you are on the edge of getting topic banned for your behavior, not because of the content argument. I'm sorry you cannot see that. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Because you fail to acknowledge that it is in fact a content-conflict as that would be inconvenient for your cause. The Banner talk 12:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose resolution to seek out a good source to include what organic has over natural foods. There are differences among the two, and we shouldn't ignore it. Any non medical source, doesn't require a review here. As far as I'm concerned non-GMO is good enough for me. The below about nutrient levels included in the article I agree with, with a question mark on non-significant levels (but fine by me, as long as what I agreed with is stated). - Sidelight12 04:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sidelight12 You are commenting on an issue that has already been resolved. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to "Are organic foods better for my health?" on the Dietitians of Canada website. It is a tertiary source so while probably not useful as a source in the article, it provides an example of how the article should present the intormation. It says, "There is not enough scientific evidence to say that organic food is more nutritious than non-organic food or that there are any health benefits to eating organic foods." It does say that organic food was found to have slightly higher levels of some nutrients, but they are insignificant and we should say that. TFD (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks TFD. The article does say exactly that already. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know. My point is that the article should say what other reasonable tertiary sources say. TFD (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no doubt Banner is correct. The neutrality of this page is ridiculous and non existent. The industrial advocates have taken over the page in an attempt to discredit Organic food. I tried for a very long time to work with the people camped on this page. But the edit waring was so bad and the positions various editors took so intractable that I gave up. I am a farmer that actually grows organic food. From a scientific and practical real world standpoint I know about the issues inside and out. I have farmed conventionally too. I know both sides. I even do research and development and side by side trials. But when I provide references, good solid encyclopedic references, they always get rejected for whatever reason one of many posters here can come up with. It's like a debate instead of an educational format. I am not interested in a debate/edit war. That's why I stopped trying to fix this ridiculous page.Redddbaron (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Redddbaron, nice to see you again! The last time you were here, you were still working on understanding what WP means by "secondary source" and in my view (see end of the discussion here, you got frustrated and went away, I am not sure you understand it yet. We have had extensive conversations about MEDRS and health claims here] and here. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog Oh yes, I got frustrated all right. You give a solid peer reviewed source and it gets shot down as a primary. You find a secondary source that references that scientific study and it gets shot down as an unscientific blog, or an industry piece, or a biased site. Whatever. The last straw was when they shot down all the information put together by California State University on nutritional differences in animal husbandry methods and their effects of health. http://www.csuchico.edu/grassfedbeef/research/index.shtml Way over 100 peer reviewed scientific studies and not a single damn one allowed. ALL very highly respected information put together by very highly educated scientific minded EDUCATORS! PHD professors no doubt, but shot down here for all sorts of excuses. Take your pick. Every bit of it shot down by every excuse in the book. Meanwhile nearly every single major paragraph in the article is writen with the purposeful attempt to make it appear as if there are little to no differences between organic and conventional food. It simply is a lie that seems supported because the evidence that is allowed to stay on the page is anti organic, and the supporting evidence is always rejected. It is weighting the evidence to push a bias on the reader. The wiki page reads like an industry propaganda blog.Redddbaron (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

i am sorry that you still don't understand what a secondary source is; most articles published in the scientific literature are primary sources. I tried very hard to explain it to you. I really did. With regard to the "grass-fed beef" article, you will recall that I was at first in favor of using that, but the arguments made that it doesn't read on "organic" per se were persuasive. There is no purposeful attempt to represent any POV; the only goal is to summarize what the secondary sources that are relevant, say. again i am sorry you are frustrated. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Redddbaron, you need to become familiar with Misplaced Pages content policies. You have one paper about the advantages of grass-fed beef and you know that organic beef is more likely to be grass-fed. But unless you have a source that talks about organic food, grass-fed beef and its benefits together, you cannot add the material to the article. See synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If you think the article is biased, then find reliable secondary sources that present the topic differently. TFD (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No. I gave one link that has well over 100 peer reviewed papers. (both primary and secondary) You simply didn't follow the links. I have tried posting many of them individually. They were all shot down for every excuse in the book. One of those excuses you just named. The logic is this: The one common major difference between feedlot beef and organic beef is the pasture rule. This is true under every organic certification body. The exact details of each certifying agency may vary slightly in the details, but that is the common thread. So scientists test to see if this has an effect on the qualitative characteristics of the final food product. They found differences. Hundreds of studies prove that beyond all reasonable doubt. It is a consensus. So an industrial ag advocate(s) owning this wikipage had to come up with a way to hide this evidence. They did that by arguing that while all organic beef is largely and/or exclusively grassfed, not all grassfed is certified organic. I am telling you it doesn't matter. Most conventional models fatten cattle in feedlots, and all organic is grassfed. (although in rare exceptions that prove the rule some supplemental feeding is allowed to prevent starving the animals when pasture forage gets low or runs out) This doesn't invalidate the scientific studies though. Feedlot cattle produce a measurable qualitatively different food product than organic cattle... because organic cattle eat grass where feedlot cattle eat more grains (and other stuff that isn't grass).Redddbaron (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

you are repeating all the things you said when we discussed this source Talk:Organic_food/Archive_5#Grass_fed_beef. I am sorry that you don't understand - I really am - and that you are frustrated. But you are not listening and turning to personal attacks instead. Just like Banner. I am sorry. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed I am repeating. Agreed it is frustrating. This impasse is the cause of both the biased artical and the editing wars. But I refuse to be in a war. That's why I refused to continue to try and fix the article and why I largely stopped editing wikipages at all. I simply don't have the time nor the inclination for this. There are qualitative differences between organic and conventional food. That is a fact. If you or any other of the more experienced editors on this page cant find a way to include that evidence on the page, then the quality of this wiki page will remain a poorly written propaganda page. But don't expect me to change it. I did my best shot. It apparently wasn't good enough. But I still can vote on the neutrality tag. I have done this and explained in great detail why the disputed neutrality tag is valid. This page is HIGHLY biased, and it is because the people owning this page always find a way to hide the evidence. You and I have both posted our COI's. It is not a personal attack at you per se. But it is interesting to note that many of your edits remain while opposing POV edits are always removed. I would like to see you wade through those 100 studies and find a way to get that evidence included. I know you tried once and your edits got removed too, just like all the rest showing qualitative differences in organic and conventional food, and their effects on public health. So this isn't meant to be a hurtful attack at you personally. It is simply my opinion that this is a dreadfully poor wiki article that is designed to mislead just as badly now that it has a anti-organic slant as it did long ago when it had a pro-organic slant. Redddbaron (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no COI with regard to this article. You practice farming techniques related to organic; that makes you an WP:EXPERT for sure and some may say you have a financial COI but I don't believe I ever did. I do undestand that you believe strongly that "There are qualitative differences" - (don't know if you meant quantitative or qualitative) but the issue here was, and still is, sourcing. Especially for controversial topics we rely on the best sources we can for this sort of thing, and that is reviews published in the scientific literature. You brought the "grass fed beef" review which for that topic was really great, but as mentioned above, very good arguments were made that "grass fed" is not the same as organic, and the WP:CONSENSUS (which is not the same thing as unanimity) was that this article shouldn't use that source nor content based on it. I do understand that you and others who believe in organic find this article to be "dreadfully poor" and are frustrated, but that is what happens when faith meets science and cannot see that it is making claims about reality that are not sustainable. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for organic standard, customer reasoning -- POV

The existing text has an unusual, editorial, and fairly limited perspective on Organic Food. What is left out most definitely creates a POV problem. For example:

Public Perception Section-- there is information about false perceptions (some) people may have, but there is nothing concerning perceptions about wildlife and environmental impacts, farm worker health, antibiotic resistance, animal confinement, etc.

Health and Safety Section -- there is information about false perceptions concerning consumer safety, but there is nothing about the health and safety of workers in the field.

And so on. --- There certainly might be a balanced way to discuss the issue of organic/conventional, but as it stands, inadvertantly or not, this article clearly reads as a strong POV editorial beating down a limited set of false perceptions and failing to recognize more widely held issues and perceptions on organic food. Over all, I"m not sure why a more descriptive entry on organic food, might serve the community better. It would be pretty simple to state in a sentence or two that there are many reasons consumers may choose organic food, some (but not all) of which might be based on misconceptions. That controversy I think belongs elsewhere. Does every consumer product wikipedia entry get swamped with descriptions of consumer misconceptions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgran (talk • contribs) 08:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

An encyclopedia relays accepted knowledge, not "perceptions" (other than as they are treated in RS). If there are good sources not being used, please suggest them. Alexbrn 08:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The existing entry has a section titled "public perceptions" that I was referring to -- and there is plenty written in scientific journals on actual wildlife and environmental impacts, farm worker health, antibiotic resistance, animal confinement, etc. If you want to reference it all (with or without a description of consumer perceptions) you will have book. I'm with you though, the entry should be descriptive of the main topic, and leave out perceptions/misperceptions completely. It should certainly leave it out if it is incomplete and one-sided.Tgran (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It should treat it in accord with its treatment in the best sources. If that's one-sided, Misplaced Pages will be too. That's neutrality. But again, this discussion isn't going to go anywhere without some sources on the table. Alexbrn 08:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Tgran The article isn't locked or anything. Please feel free to improve it. Please note that content about the way the food is produced is discussed in organic farming - this article has been focused on the food itself and that article, on how it is produced, with each of their respective benefits, perceptions etc. So please don't duplicate or contradict what is there - instead please consider WP:SUMMARY. Please mind Misplaced Pages:Controversial_articles#Raise_source_quality and please make sure sources you bring discuss perception - discussions of perception too easily turn into WP:COATRACK for claims about reality, so please mind that too. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Information can be added about why people would choose organic food. Do you have any good sources about it? TFD (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

some of this is discussed in the article already- that is what the perception section focuses on. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I cannot find much. The only reasons given that anyone would purchase organic food addressed in the lead are health and taste. The taste claim is not adequately sourced as no page nos. are given. None of the other reasons are mentioned. The overall impression is that people who buy organic food do so because they irrationally believe it is safer and more nutritious. Nothing about environmental concerns, animal welfare or human welfare. TFD (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Food nutrient levels falling

Why does the article not mention that nutrient levels have dramatically declined in industrially grown foods in the last 50 years ? Or is it there, and I have missed it? MLPainless (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source for scientific information WP, and I would take it with a grain of salt if I were you. It is news hyping a primary source, which may or may not be found useful by the scientific community. That is why we wait for review articles - why every policy and guideline about sourcing call us to use secondary sources, not primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In addition to what Jytdog said, the main reasoning I've been seeing in the literature that could reasonably cause a decrease in certain nutrients (though folks aren't going so far to make the claims above) is just because they aren't being selected for during breeding. That would have nothing to do with conventional vs. organic at all since it relates to breeding, which is done with all crops. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to the abstract. Google scholar shows 184 cites of the article, we can see if the view is generally accepted. Of course it relates to conventional v. organic farming, because the reason these breeds were chosen is that they are suited to intensive farming. TFD (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

TFD, I'm not seeing where you're relating that article to organic (are you?). I don't see see any mention of organic farming at least, but just differences in garden crops over time. That paper is at least making the standard argument I've seen pretty often that it's a combination of selecting for yield where the plant spreads the nutrients out more (lower density) and genetic variability. They also state that organic growing methods are unlikely to reverse the trend. It's a primary study though with some caveats mentioned that make it a little iffy from the reliability standpoint for Misplaced Pages (standard confounding of location, variety, etc.), so I'll be curious to see what reviews citing it say. I'm not sure it'd really be a topic for here though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not the study mentions organic food, it is cited in many secondary sources about organic food, and we can cite them. I am not prejudging what they say, but the decline in the nutritional value of food has helped spur the organic industry. TFD (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have the 2004 article and would be happy to send it to anybody who wants to see it. Davis included a lot of caveats in it. He writes: "The apparent overall decreases for some nutrients are interesting and potentially of concern, but like Mayer and Johnson, we urge caution about their interpretation." and talks a lot about the limitations of the study.. and strange things in the data about apparent increases in nutrient levels in some foods. Granting that the there is something real going on, he speculates about possible reasons for it, providing two main hypotheses (a quote follows):

• "1) Downward pressure on the acquisition or synthesis of many nutrients, caused by decades of selecting cultivars for other resource-limited traits such as yield, growth rate and pest resistance. Selection for yield especially, may enhance the carbohydrate-water fraction in vegetables, without fully proportionate increases in other nutrients. Selection for yield probably has operated most intensely in the last half-century, but certainly not exclusively.
• 2. Unpredictable genetic variability among cultivars large enough to explain our observation of sometimes increased levels of nutrients."

• Continuing on his line of speculation in #1, and thinking about this article, it would be interesting to know what seeds are used in organic farming, especially for vegetables (the subject of the study). I don't know if organic growers use different cultivars than conventional farmers. I don't believe that is covered here or in organic farming.
• I'll end by quoting the passage from the article where Davis directly addresses "organic": "To the extent that our genetics-based hypothesis may contribute toward the apparent general declines found by us and Mayer , those declines are unlikely to be reversed by environmental approaches such as organic growing methods, as suggested by some . Instead, we would need to consider older, lower-yielding cultivars, or attempt to develop new varieties selected for both high yield and high nutrient density."
• That is what this source actually has to say on "organic" matters. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I also want to note that I just checked and the article currently has very recent reviews on the nutrient/chemical composition of organic food. Can re-check them to see if they say anything about this matter. (we are talking about a 10 year old primary source). Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know organic growers do use different varieties. Quite often heirloom varieties that can cope better with adverse conditions without artificial fertilizers or other chemicals. And no hydroculture. The Banner talk 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Since it is a primary source, we would not normally use it, but could use secondary sources that cite it. I imagine the significance of the report is that nutrition levels have declined, rather than their ideas about what should be done. BTW any idea when Round-up ready "older, lower-yielding cultivars" are coming out? TFD (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact, nature is already developing Round-up-restisting varieties. So in a couple of years chimical growers need so much chemicals, that organically grown vegetables simply get cheaper to produce. Or better, chemical production will become more expensive per unit produced than organic production per unit will cost. The Banner talk 22:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Banner, WP:NOTFORUM. That is not constructive contribution.Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Another thing you don't want to hear. I was, by the way, responding on the discussion above about cultivars, especially the sentence I don't know if organic growers use different cultivars than conventional farmers.. But, if it is not a place for discussion, why don't you tap TFD too? The Banner talk 22:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, what content are you proposing or source are you discussing in your comment above? Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of my edit was to explain and clarify something so you could learn from it. The Banner talk 02:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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