| Revision as of 16:02, 30 November 2014 editKjayh (talk | contribs)14 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:55, 17 October 2024 edit undoA. Randomdude0000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,008 edits Restored revision 1233688387 by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk): WP:NOTFORUMTags: Twinkle Undo |
| (442 intermediate revisions by 59 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=17:39, 11 October 2006 |
|
|action1date=17:39, 11 October 2006 |
| Line 20: |
Line 23: |
|
|topic=Everydaylife |
|
|topic=Everydaylife |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old AfD multi|page=Organic food|date=30 November 2012|result='''speedy keep'''}} |
|
{{to do|3}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Dietary Supplements | class=C | importance=top }} |
|
{{WikiProject Dietary Supplements | importance=top }} |
|
{{WikiProject Food and drink |class=C|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Food and drink |importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Environment|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Environment |importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Agriculture|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Agriculture |importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening |importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi|page=Organic food|date=30 November 2012|result='''speedy keep'''}} |
|
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 125K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 125K |
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Organic food/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Organic food/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| Line 44: |
Line 48: |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{archive box |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month |search=yes |auto=long |index=/Archive index }} |
|
|
|
|
|
== content and sources for taste == |
|
|
|
|
|
About : |
|
|
|
|
|
* "Taste is subjective and thus hard to quantify. So ultimately it is the consumer that decides if organic raised food tastes better to them or not. " This is just bland generalization. Deleted it. |
|
|
:Bland generalization maybe, but written that way on purpose for NPOV, Unlike the rest of the paragraph which had a decidedly negative POV. You want to take it out, fine, but replace it with something NPOV.] (]) 17:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: i ended up keeping something like it and sourced it to daley. ] (]) 17:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
* This "However, the composition and quantity of certain things in foods that affect flavor, like soluble sugars, lipids, phenolic compounds, and brix, are affected by organic production methods." is generally true and worth saying. However as the source that was brought states, all production methods effect flavor. The says nothing about organic methods per se and talks about all kinds of things, including distinctly non-organic methods like hormones. |
|
|
:Exactly. Hormones are not organic, and that changes the meat. It changes a lot of things, but taste is one of them. All you need to learn from the source is there is a measurable difference without making a claim that one or the other tastes better (or that there is no difference) to maintain NPOV.] (]) 17:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the following sources: |
|
|
* as it is ] |
|
|
:I contend that although primary, it was not misused and fits wiki standards] (]) 18:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
* because a) it fails ] (as RedBaron has noted many times, Mother Jones has been a longtime advocate for organic methods); b) it is a blog - it is not a reliable secondary source and not what we should use. |
|
|
:It is Mother Earth News, not Mother Jones. And while Mother Earth News is an advocate for Organic food (and many other issues), I did not transfer the bias into the wiki page. Mother Earth News would claim it tastes better. I simply stated that it was different and let the consumer decide. PS. This is not "just a blog" It is the online version of a periodical with 1/2 a million circulation] (]) 18:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::thanks for the correction, I was wrong. same issues apply, as you noted. ] (]) 18:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* source because again, it is a blog. That blog is discussing , which if we were going to use anything about this, is what we would use. But this source should not be used, since a) it is ], and on top of that; b) not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and c) is primarily ] for the Wisconsin dairy industry. |
|
|
:The study is indeed for the Wisconsin Dairy industry, but it is a study in how that industry might change their practices from what they are now, so as to produce a better tasting product. Quite different from advertising promo designed for the public.] (]) 18:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, - seems great, and there is more we could use this for, which I will do today. ] (]) 17:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:CSU has many many more studies on that page. I listed 3 of them just above on this talk page, but no one used them.] (]) 18:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Again all your changes taken as a whole have restored the negative bias to the taste paragraph. Seems YOU and not ME is the one treading on the WP advocate rules in this case. My edits were NPOV exclusively, carefully avoiding any claims organic tastes either better or worse, simply acknowledging that verifiable chemical changes in the composition of the food does affect flavor. Even when the sources I used claimed this made the products taste better, I carefully left those comments out of my edits. Your edits quite the opposite. ] (]) 18:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I am going to say two things, one last time. Last time. 1) Content needs to be based on reliable sources. 2) Please discuss content, not contributors. That is the last time I will say either of those things. Going forward, I will ignore complaints that are not backed by reliable sources. ] (]) 18:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::There is nothing wrong with negative content per ]. A common mistake for new editors is that they believe NPOV means the article must be neutral. That is not the case, but rather it must written from a neutral point of view. There is an important difference in the two if you read NPOV and relevant guidelines. Wanting content changed simply because it is negative is a violation of NPOV. At this point I highly suggest slowing down because it looks like you're having a few issues with some of Misplaced Pages's core policies and guidelines. We can help to a point, but this has become a recurring issue that we really can't be spending too much time on and article talk page. ] (]) 19:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The paper on grass-fed beef does not mention organic farming. "Laura's Lean Beef" for example is grass-fed but not organic. You need a source that connects them. ] (]) 18:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I thought the same thing, but I was trying to work with RedBaron, to give him ~something~. Please feel free to delete the source and content based on it. ] (]) 18:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You both are correct. Your source is the "pasture rule" which is a requirement for organic production, but not a requirement for industrial production. The fact that someone might use some organic methods, but not use other organic methods has little bearing on whether organic methods affect the quality of the food produced. The vast majority of studies quantifying those differences will investigate each method separately, because attempting to investigate too many brings in confounding factors....ie Was it the growth hormone and/or steroids that affected quality or was it diet that affected quality? Turns out both, but you need separate studies to confirm and quantify each.] (]) 19:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Also, organic farmers tend to use different breeds. OTOH, farmers in Northern states may feed cattle hay in winter, and farmers have no control over what grazing cattle choose to eat. There are lots of variables and we need reliable sources that discuss them and draw conclusions, but none have been presented. ] (]) 20:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That is simply wrong. I have been posing citations. I posted 5 citations with one tiny 2 sentence change to taste and promptly got the edit removed. But hey, you want to discuss? |
|
|
Here are 7 on carcass quality: |
|
|
http://www.csuchico.edu/grassfedbeef/research/meats.shtml |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is 2 dozen on lipid profiles, I'll use them because CSU was kind enough to remove the paywalls. There are hundreds, maybe thousands more. The effect of diet on meat quality is VERY well studied.: |
|
|
http://www.csuchico.edu/grassfedbeef/research/lipids.shtml |
|
|
|
|
|
after you read those 20+ studies Here is your review of health benefits: |
|
|
http://www.csuchico.edu/grassfedbeef/research/health-benefits.shtml |
|
|
|
|
|
Then another 50 to 60 health attribute citations all paywalls removed by the same university : |
|
|
http://www.csuchico.edu/grassfedbeef/research/health-lit.shtml |
|
|
|
|
|
That's over 100 citations from an accredited State University website...just one...... In almost every agricultural university in the whole country you can find similar. (although not all Universities were kind enough to list with paywalls removed) I was not exaggerating one bit. I am not advocating either. All I ask for is the wiki page reflect a NPOV instead of reading like a low quality industrial ag propaganda blog.] (]) 02:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:<s>Quality or quantity? From a quick glance these are primary research studies, and so not really usable. To save time, what would you say the ''strongest'' source on your list is? ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 12:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
:not sure why Alexbrn crossed out his comment, except that maybe he too is getting tired of this ]. Almost all those sources ''are'' ] and we don't use those in Misplaced Pages. Also, the article you cite about "health" is about nutrients, not health. I think we should all take a breather here and come back in a while. ] (]) 01:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Grass fed beef == |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed mention of grass fed beef, because grass fed beef does not appear to be the same as organically produced beef. I am wondering why this was added, and continues to be reverted back into the article, as the sources appear to talk about a different topic. ] (]) 15:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Just for a little clarification if it helps, grass fed is a component of organic beef, but not the whole picture. You can have grass fed, but not organic though. I can see why it would be tempting to place such material in this article, but if it was going to be included anywhere, it would have a better fit in a broader article about beef cattle and how they are raised in regards to finishing (e.g., ] and ], which could use some work anyways). That's where grass-fed information would be relevant. I think the removal here is appropriate since this information isn't specific to organic beef, and the if and how to include it in other articles is probably best figured out there. ] (]) 18:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::So we should use a source that says organic farming typically uses grass feed and which briefly mention what effects that has. And the same thing with other organic products. ] (]) 20:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's what I was thinking for content (or updating a beef page to include the grass-fed process, and just wikilinking to it). I think the briefness overall is important here. We could talk a little more about about the animals being grass fed over at ] since that page is describing the process, but here it should be a matter of just saying they are grass-fed and focus on what is unique to organic ''food'' and not the process. That would also mean avoiding attributing qualities that are due to grass fed as something due to specifically being organic food. Either way, I'm taking a mini break from editing, so I’m just including this as my two cents on what a good direction looks like and will let other folks figure out what actual edits should be for now. ] (]) 21:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::All organic certification boards have a pasture rule. These are not the only requirements for organic, but it is one requirement. Grass fed is a component of all organic produced beef, without exception. Feed makes a difference in taste, nutrients and quality of animals products, also without exception. Dismissing the relevant qualitative difference production methods have is not educating people about the differences in organic food. It is cleverly hiding it IMHO.] (]) 21:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Per the USDA , "Grass-fed animals receive a majority of their nutrients from grass throughout their life, while organic animals’ pasture diet may be supplemented with grain. Also USDA regulated, the grass-fed label does not limit the use of antibiotics, hormones, or pesticides. Meat products may be labeled as grass-fed organic." In other words, not all organic beef is grass fed, and not all grass fed is organic. To be more precise, while there is some overlap, they are distinct categories, so we should not pretend like they are the same. If all organic meats are grass fed by definition, then coming up with a separate "grass-fed organic" category would be redundant. As it is not, they are not the same. ] (]) 21:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Last comment since I was still around, but my whole point was that grass-fed is part of a larger process people use than just organic production (there are non-organic grass-fed operations). That's why careful attribution is needed to avoid making it seem like some trait is due to the meat being organic when in fact it's simply due to being grass-fed (as you stated, feed makes the difference). It's all about proper attribution of causation. A classic example is a "study" that showed crime rates increased as ice cream sales increased. It could seem like ice cream causes crime, or criminals want ice cream after committing crimes by that presentation, when in reality it was because both increase during summer months. In this case, the nuance is going to be making sure that grass-fed (i.e., summer) is attributed as the main causal factor, and things that correlate along with that like organic production aren't given ]. ] (]) 21:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Yes it is true that there is such a thing as "industrial organic" which only uses the absolute minimum requirements for time on pasture. Whereas confinement operations are not required to have any pasture at all. This disparity is discussed in "The Omnivores Dilemma". It is also true that anyone raising food at the minimal requirements will only show minimal improvements in quality. Make sense? Remember, the certification boards were not set up to teach organic production methods to farmers, they were set up to prevent industrial growers from fraudulently using the term "organic" as a marketing ploy, deceiving the consumer, without actually changing their production methods much. Pasture raised IS an organic method of production however. That's why all organic certification boards have a pasture rule. But "grass fed organic" means it is better than just the minimum requirements.] (]) 22:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Which means, by definition, they are different standards, and we should not be conflating grass fed meats in the organic food article, as they are not the same. Sources discussing difference with grass fed beef belong in a different article. ] (]) 22:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::NO It doesn't mean that at all. It means all organic production includes grass fed. It is required by all organic certification boards. Just because it is not required to be 100% grass fed doesn't mean it isn't grass fed. Organic beef is '''REQUIRED''' to be grass fed.] (]) 22:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Here's how the USDA defines "grass fed" (): |
|
|
:::::::::"Grass (Forage) Fed – Grass and forage shall be the feed source consumed for the lifetime of the ruminant animal, with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. The diet shall be derived solely from forage consisting of grass (annual and perennial), forbs (e.g., legumes, Brassica), browse, or cereal grain crops in the vegetative (pre-grain) state. Animals cannot be fed grain or grain byproducts and must have continuous access to pasture during the growing season." As we saw in the previous USDA link I provided, organic meats' "pasture diet may be supplemented with grain". In other words, organic meats do not automatically meet "grass fed" criteria. There is a rule that organic meats must have ''access to'' pasture, but they can be supplemented with grain, ''which means that not all organic meats meet "grass fed" criteria'', by definition. ] (]) 22:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:You are making an improper synthesis. I posted 2 sources including USDA in the article which shows the pasture rule. AND improperly changing the article on a subject already discussed. The links are http://organicrules.org/custom/differences.php?id=2g and http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nopaccesstopasture Now if you don't happen to understand the pasture rule, I suggest you watch this vid so you won't be confusing either yourself or anyone trying to use wikipedia as a reference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyu9-_TExRg That should clear up your confusion.] (]) 22:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::"Grass fed" meats . Organic animals' . By simple logic, the organic standards != grass fed standard, and contrary to your assertion, organic beef is '''NOT REQUIRED''' to be grass fed, per the USDA. Please address these simple facts. ] (]) 22:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It absolutely is required for organic to be grass fed. It isn't required 100% by the usda but it is required. Heck even though the language you linked to appears to infer grass fed means 100% grass fed. That isn't even true. It is 99%, and can include other forages that have been approved, such as brassicas, (discards from cabbage brocolli and cauliflower etc... production. You'll not find many absolutes in the real world. But the important thing to note is that while all organic beef is "grass fed" as their primary diet, there are other regulations like antibiotics synthetic hormones etc... So there are rare producers that would raise on pasture but also inject antibiotics and/or metabolic modifiers (mostly dairies). So yes, it is possible to raise "grass fed" animals that are not certified organic, but it is not possible to raise organic beef without feeding them on grass.] (]) 23:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The point is not if they are "fed grass at some point in their life", but using the definition of "grass fed" by an objective standard such as the USDA. By USDA standards, "organic" beef is '''NOT REQUIRED''' to be "grass fed". Period. Full stop. ] (]) 23:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{od}} Yobol is dead on. As I acknowledged above, I should not have allowed the source about "grass-fed" in. This article is about organic food. The source (a very good review article! - a secondary source) is about grass-fed beef. Those are different sets. They are definitely overlapping sets, but they are not identical. Unfortunately the source on grass-fed beef doesn't say anything about whether the meats they discussed were organically produced or not, so the source has no place here. (in fact, in a few places, the grass-fed review article talks about just "finishing" livestock on grass..) ] (]) 23:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's an equivocation. You are using a marketing guideline sense of the phrase to ignore the feeding study use of the phrase.] (]) 15:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::please, please stop being accusatory. When you do an experiment comparing X and Y to find out if there are any differences between them, you want to make sure that X is really "X" and not, say, a mixture of X, A, B, and C. You also want to make sure that X is really X, and not Z. This article is about organic food - that is what we what to understand and describe. We have no way of knowing in this case if the meat being studied is X (organic). So we can't use the source. That's my perspective. If there is something i am missing in the article that signals really clearly to you that the source ''is'' about organic, please point out to me where that is. i might be missing it. ] (]) 15:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's about reductionism in science. Even if a product is a mixture of X,A,B,C a those additional confounding factors are factored out to get meaningful results. However, in marketing guidelines, those additional ABC factors can not be ignored. Hence the equivocation in using a marketing definition for a scientific study. All organic beef and dairy production requires the primary source of nutrition for the animals to be forage based...ie commonly known as "grass fed". And you can do scientific studies on the quantifiable differences in meat quality between feeding forage vs feeding grain as the primary nutrition. I showed many of those studies. The fact that there is slightly different criteria and requirements to market a product between "organic grass feed", "organic", and "grass fed" is an issue the scientific studies do not address. They have reduced the issue to only the specific quantifiable effects feeding forage as opposed to feeding grains as the primary food source.] (]) 16:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::sorry if i misunderstanding this but i understand that for meat to be organic, the animals have to be a) not treated with drugs more than is medically necessary and b) raised on organic food. Is that correct? If so, what in the article says that the meat tested came from un-drugged animals, and that the fields where they grazed were not treated with chemical fertizilers or pesticides; and c) that before they were finished on grass, they were fed with organic feed? Thanks. ] (]) 16:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That is not correct. The PRIMARY defining factor of organic beef is forage, referred to as "the pasture rule". Those other issues like drugs, metabolic modifiers, pesticides and organic feed are secondary additional requirements. In order to claim those secondary requirements also have a quantifiable effect on meat qualities, maybe even canceling the forage effects studied, you would need to cite this.] (]) 16:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} Sources for my understanding of organic standards for meat: |
|
|
* (all three things) |
|
|
* |
|
|
* . |
|
|
what are your sources that the only thing that matters is pasturing (and that it doesn't matter if the pasture is organic or not?) Thanks. ] (]) 17:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:this is pretty important. redddbaron you are making the claim that if feed my cow tons of antibiotics and growth hormone, but finish it on pasture, meat from that animal is meaningfully "organic". Likewise if I raise a calf on feed containing antibiotics, ground up cow waste products, and GMO soy, but finish it on grass, meat from the cow is meaningfully organic. Likewise, if I fertilize my pasture and spray it with weedkiller and finish my cow on that pasture, the meat is meaningfully organic. I will be surprised if you find a source that says that. I doubt you think that. And since the source says nothing about any of that, we have no idea if the meat is meaningfully organic. Right? ] (]) 17:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Not claiming that at all. Not even close. In fact the opposite. Organic beef production requires pasture forage in all life phases beyond weaning. This requirement is called the pasture rule. Organic has additional requirements, but those additional requirements do not cancel the pasture rule. The citations I gave regarding "grass fed" vs "grain fed" ...therefore apply to organic beef. (unless you can show somehow that the additional requirements somehow negate the quantifiable nutritional benefits derived from forage vs grains.)] (]) 18:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I am not saying anything "cancels out" the pasture requirement. I totally get it that organic requires pasturing. (really, i do!) Again, the grass-finished cows (and they are only grass-finished, from what i could gather) could well have been loaded up with antibiotics and hormones and thus the meat from them falls way, way outside the organic standard. Likewise the calves could have been raised on GMO and meat products. You are not addressing that. It is like asking you if you like a song, and playing you only the bassline and demanding you give an answer for the whole song. it could be the vocals are dead awful. you just don't know. Likewise other aspects of raising the cows in the published paper could have dramatically violated organic standards. We don't know. so we can't use it to make claims about organic beef. ] (]) 19:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The recent start-up of the conversation seems to be veering off course. I believe we already have consensus above that the source was specific to grass-fed beef, and that if it was going to be considered anywhere, that should be it should actually be in an article or section about grass-fed beef. You can have organic and non-organic grass-fed beef, so this doesn't appear to be the level of article at which we should be including the specific source. For instance, we wouldn't say in every cattle breed article that the breed has hooves. We leave that for the ] article and don't attribute having hooves as something specific to the breeds, but rather to being an ]. In this case we have a detail we cannot ascribe to specifically being organic, so it seems like this conversation should have stopped long ago. Sounds like it's time to move on to other content. ] (]) 18:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:You may have assumed consensus, but that is not the case. Your consensus was based on an equivocation logic error, and thus not valid.] (]) 18:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::redddbaron i am trying to work with you and address your concerns, but please be aware that ] is not unanimity. ] (]) 18:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Unless you are trying to assert that only organic cattle are grass-fed (which I don't believe you are), then we've reached the conclusion of this conversation long ago. Remember the point of an article talk page is to address specific ''content'' solutions. When a solution has been proposed like was done above and generally agreed upon by most editors because of its reasoning grounded in Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, that's when you have consensus. There's comes a point where even if you think you are right, the community has moved on. You're still relatively new to editing in contentious discussions, so I'm trying to cut you some slack, but there's a time to drop the ] and find a new horse to hop on too. ] (]) 19:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:No I am not asserting that all grassfed beef is organic. I am asserting that from the feeding study POV, the other confounding factors were factored out and the feeding studies only address the feed and the effect feed has on the nutritional qualities of the product, not other issues. All organic is pastured (grass fed) but not all pastured is organic. Now the %s of the feed do vary slightly by organic certification board, it is incidental. The PRIMARY feed for all the organic beef production is required to be grass fed. Although there is an exception allowed for short term small supplemental grains, this can never be the primary feed source. If it is, the cattle must be tagged and separated, or if the whole herd, then none can be sold as organic..even if the grains were organic. They would be labeled something else. For example. Lets say a drought hit and the pasture simply couldn't support a herd...it is unreasonable to force the farmer to starve his cows. So he would typically supplement with grains and hay...then hopefully later when rains came he would finish them on grass. But they still couldn't be sold as organic if the grain supplements ever exceeded certain limits. A farmer could finish them on grass though and sell it as grass finished. Or if the grain supplements were small enough, the organic rancher could apply for a waiver as long as he could finish on pasture. Bottom line is all these exceptions waivers and clauses are not anything to do with a feeding study. Certification boards set regulations to prevent grain fed beef from marketing itself as organic. It is to prevent marketing fraud. The actual organic method of raising beef organic is on pasture. This has a quantifiable effect on nutritional qualities as compared to the other model of beef production which is to fatten on grains in a feedlot. That's what the feeding studies show.] (]) 08:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: you have not directly addressed what i and others have written about this and i am not going to repeat myself again. if you address it, i will be happy to reply. ] (]) 09:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No offense intended, but the arguments here SOUND like ya'll never raised a cow in your life. Lets simplify down to the crux. Organic beef is raised on grass, all the rest of the beef in the market place is finished in a feedlot. There may theoretically be a few other options, but the margins are so thin, that's how it is done. And because of how it is done, the nutritional content of organic beef is significantly different in those things measured in the feeding trials I posted on the difference in feedlot and grass. Does that simplify it for y'all?] (]) 14:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::this is a simple thing. you keep saying that grass-fed beef = organic beef, and that is just not true. There is an intersection between "grass fed beef" and "organic beef". they are overlapping sets, but they are not identical. Grass fed beef could be treated with drugs, the calves could be fed non-organic feed, etc. You are '''not addressing with that'''. I have nothing more to say until you do. ] (]) 14:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I did address that, it is an equivocation to use scientific senses of the term grass fed and then apply marketing definitions. Also while it is POSSIBLE to raise grass fed beef and not be certified organic, You could theoretically spray those pastures with chemicals and pump the beef full of expensive antibiotics etc... it isn't done. There is no need for it. Don't need all those expensive inputs to raise a cow on pasture. Organic gets a premium price. Why would someone spend more to get less, when he can spend less to get more? And even if it was done, there is no citations here showing it would cause a nutritional difference in the product. Like I said sounds like some theorectical argument from fantasy land made by someone who never raised a cow, that has nothing to do with what farmers actually do to raise food.] (]) 19:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::ok, this is the first time I have heard you saying straight out, "it isn't done". If you said that before and I didn't hear you, I apologize. Now I need to ask you to provide a reliable source that says that. {I respect your knowledge, but that is not enough for WP :) } Thanks! ] (]) 20:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::i gotta add here, that even if you find one, I or others may still say your argument falls prey to ] because the source on meat that you want to use doesn't explicitly say that the cows from which the meat came were raised organically, .... but I am trying to work with you. let's see what a source you bring says about the "it isn't done" thing. ] (]) 10:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Factors Affecting Nutritional Content of Organic Foods == |
|
|
|
|
|
"Determining the potential nutritional superiority of organic food is not a simple task. Numerous factors, apart from organic versus inorganic growing, influence the amount of vitamins and phytochemicals (phenols, flavonoids, carotenoids, etc.) in a crop. These factors include the weather (affecting crops year-to-year), specific environmental conditions from one farm to the next (microclimates), soil condition, etc. Another major factor not taken into account in published studies was the length of time the specific plots of land have been working using organic methods. Since it takes years to build soil quality in a plot using organic methods and for the persistent pollutants in the ground to be reduced, this can significantly affect the outcome of comparative studies. The importance of these difference factors is apparent from a review of the recent studies examining the nutrient content in produce."<ref>{{cite web|last1=Crinnion|first1=Walter|title=Organic Foods Contain Higher Levels of Certain Nutrients, Lower Levels of Pesticides and May Provide Health Benefits for the Consumer|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20359265|website=PubMed.gov|publisher=Alternative Medicine Review|accessdate=7 October 2014}}</ref>] (]) 00:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{refideas|}} |
|
:ok, so besides this being copyvio (that is right on the border of fair use, please never paste something longer than that anywhere in WP). are you suggesting content from this be added to the article? i hesitate to use this as a source for content on the quality of studies. ] (]) 00:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Bio and eco == |
|
I think that is great information to add to the article, it shows that there are many other contributors to the quality of organic foods other then the method of farming. ] (]) 01:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is actually the problem here with ecologic and biological food? Both terms redirect to this article and you can simply verify the interwiki's to see that they are nearly the only used terms in Europe. Only a few use organic, which does not simply translate to ecologic or biological. --] (]) 13:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
==Phytonutrient Content== |
|
|
"In the last 30 years the importance of the phytonutrient content of foods has been established. These compounds, including carotenoids, flavonoids, and other polyphenols, have been the focus of mush study, and many are now provided as dietary supplements. Flavonoid molecules are potent antioxidants. The carotenoid lycopene has been shown to help reduce cancer risk. The anthocyanin compounds in berries have been shown to improve neuronal and cognitive brain functions and ocular health and protect genomic DNA integrity. Because of the health benefits of phytonutrients, they have been the focus of much recent research on the nutritional value of organic foods."<ref>{{cite web|last1=Crinnion|first1=Walter|title=Organic Foods Contain Higher Levels of Certain Nutrients, Lower Levels of Pesticides, and May Provide Health Benefits for the Consumer|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20359265|website=PubMed.gov|publisher=Alternative Medicine Review|accessdate=7 October 2014}}</ref>] (]) 00:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Confounding factors when comparing health effects == |
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The sentence I wrote "It has been demonstrated that income, educational level, BMI, physical activity, dietery habits and number of children are associated with the level of organic food consumption*. (citing Brantsæter et al 2017) was modified to "In Norway, alcohol intake and smoking, as well as exercise and low BMI, were associated with higher levels of organic food consumption." I stand by my first sentence. The relevant section in Brantsæter et al contains the following sentence "Most studies report that organic consumption is closely linked to other health and lifestyle indicators, e.g., consumers often have higher education and income, have lower body-mass index (BMI), are more physically active, and have healthier diets than those who do not or seldom use organic food". They cite 5 publications. A similar list of factors appears in the following two reviews, which also cite the original papers. |
|
:again, this is bordering on copyvio. again, are you suggesting that content from this be added to the article? i defintely will not this article as a source for anything health related. we have more recent, and more respected reviews that say that health effects are not proven, and per ] older, lower quality sources cannot override newer, higher quality sources. ] (]) 00:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Systematic Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food Consumption: Is There a Measurable Benefit on Human Health? Vanessa Vigar, Stephen Myers, Christopher Oliver , Jacinta Arellano , Shelley Robinson and Carlo Leifert. Nutrients 2020, 12(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12010007 |
|
:{{u|Kjayh}} please slow down!! you are ] over content that violates copyright - please stop and talk. you clearly know how to use the talk page. ] (]) 01:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
would you be open to adding a section on phytonutrient since they are shown to be in organic foods, and they have a important impact on health and wellness as it is stated in the sections I posted above] (]) 01:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:This wikipedia thing is a bit more complicated than you think. First did you read the actual article, namely the ] section? Also, did you read what I wrote just above, about MEDRS? Did you read MEDRS? thanks ] (]) 01:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Abusing MEDRS to censor any positive benefits to the nutritional qualities of organic food again? You should realise this war will go on forever until an educated realistic balanced content exists. As long as the page remains a propaganda piece for industrial agriculture and completely censors any benefit at all to organic food, these wars will continually pop up.] (]) 04:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::please comment on content, not contributor. please strike. there is nothing about content or sources, to respond to. ] (]) 13:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Look, food is not medicine. Neither is the broader category nutrition. But food and nutritional content of that food is all about health. Unfortunately any editor ..me or any other, in this case Kjayh, who talks about and puts any information about the quantifiable differences that can be found in organic food and the related health benefits that quantifiable difference can potentially make, it gets immediately removed. Now, to be fair, I know why. There is a whole lot of misinformation and exaggerated claims in the wider organic movements. I get that. But Kjayh didn't try to put exaggerated claims, nor did he use misinformation. That means instead of reversing his edits, they need reworded to fit wiki guidelines. But either way it is an abuse of MEDRS to pretend health related articles relating to ordinary food is the same as medicine. Therefore using restrictive MEDRS level criteria of content and citations is an abuse of MEDRS. In other words using medicine criteria on food articles where inappropriate is a form of censorship. That's my opinion. The copyvio> Sure but the solution to copyvio is rewriting the content, not simply removing it. Oh and btw. Again, this is about censorship of content. There is absolutely nothing here about contributors per se. It's all about the content of the wikipage. Nothing personal.] (]) 14:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::again, not responding to personal attack. please stop doing that. people can disagree about - and people can misunderstand - our policies and guidelines, with absolutely no bad faith involved. if you tried harder to listen and talk, this would move farther and faster than it will if you don't focus on the issues and instead make personal attacks. It is a mistake that many new editors make. Please focus on the issues, the key one of which is the difference in how we interpret MEDRS. To be honest I don't think you have ever slowed down enough to really read it and understand it. Most of what you say about it and your selection of sources do not reflect an accurate understanding of what it actually says. I know you have work on your land to do, but you are choosing to spend time on WP, so you really need to take time and engage with the guideline, and engage with other editors in good faith discussions about how to use it. Please slow dowwn and work with me and other editors who see this differently than you. ] (]) 14:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Azizur Rahman, Parnian Baharlouei, Eleanor Hui Yan Koh, Diana Gabby Pirvu, Rameesha Rehmani, Mateo Arcos, Simron Puri. A Comprehensive Analysis of Organic Food: Evaluating Nutritional Value and Impact on Human Health. Foods 2024, 13 (2) , 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13020208 |
|
:::::MEDRS describes content that relates to health, not just medicine. When you start making implications about nutrient differences, you are getting into health territory. Regardless though, the policies and guidelines we've pointed out to you specify ''why'' we reach for secondary sources for scientific content in general especially. Content you want isn't being removed because it is positive about organic (or negative for that matter either). It's because we need reliable sources and to assign due weight (i.e., what is the source actually saying and has it been accepted by the scientific community?). That means something very different on Misplaced Pages than what you seem to be interpreting, so again, please slow down and review what we have for guidance (namely ], ], and ]). The issues with your edits have been rather straightforward and grounded in those areas, and going on about industrial ag and censorship is largely irrelevant here. If you're having trouble seeing where one of your misunderstandings in interpreting a specific source happened, we can discuss that here, but a general conversation of understanding study design, inference, etc. might be better suited for a user talk page. ] (]) 16:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::And to my opinion MEDRS is misused to keep valuable information out of articles, especially "non-mainstream medical" articles. Every time something positive crops up, it is shot down with as argument "failing MEDRS". No matter what respectable university or magazine published the info. Bang, gone. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 20:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps it is only my experience and observation, but I would have thought that these correlations would be not at all controversial, and would be what we all would have judged to be the case if we were to guess. Therefore unless anyone has a serious objection, I will reinstate the first sentence. |
|
==What The "Organic" Label Really Means== |
|
|
I was wanting to see what you all thought about adding this sub-section either under the 'Public Perception' or 'Legal Definition'... If you are open to adding this section I would paraphrase and reword some of it. I think this would be a great section to add because most people do not know what the Organic USDA seal means. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 15:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
"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." |
|
|
"Products certified 95 percent or more organic display the USDA sticker. |
|
|
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"<ref>"USDA-FDA.com Nutritional Labeling, USDA Label Expeditor, Facility Consultant, UPC Barcodes." USDA-FDA.com Nutritional Labeling, USDA Label Expeditor, Facility Consultant, UPC Barcodes. Web. 25 Nov. 2014. <http://usda-fda.com/organic-nutrition.htm>.</ref>] (]) 15:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I think the issue is that the source continues with a massive caveat after where you stop: |
|
==Organic Food== |
|
|
|
:{{talkquote|However, this pattern does not necessarily apply when organic food consumption is related to an alternative lifestyle that includes vegetarianism, environmentalism, or other ideologies.}} |
|
I think adding a little overview about organic farming in the first section would be beneficial to the viewers. Right after it says "Organic foods are produced using methods for organic farming." I suggest we add the following: "Organic farming can be defined as "a system that is designed and managed to produce agricultural products by... using, where possible, cultural biological and mechanical methods, as opposed to using substances, to fulfill any specific function within the system so as to: maintain long-term soil fertility; increase soil biological activity; ensure effective pest management; recycle wastes to return nutrients to the land; provide attentive care for farm animals; and handle the agricultural products without the use of extraneous synthetic additives or processing in accordance with the Act and the regulations in this part."<ref>"What Is the True Value of Buying "Organic" Foods?" Home. Web. 21 Nov. 2014. <http://www.americanrunning.org/w/article/what-is-the-true-value-of-buying-organic-foods>.</ref>] (]) 16:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:and is preceded by a more general qualifier: |
|
|
:{{talkquote|Research describing lifestyle and socioeconomic characteristics of organic food consumers has shown that organic consumption is a complex phenomenon involving diverse groups that do not fit into typically defined consumer segments.}} |
|
|
:At least the Norway stuff seems straightforward. Taking the source's qualifications into account, and its cautious wording ("Most studies report that ..."), and having Misplaced Pages say in wikivoice "It has been demonstrated that ..." imperils our need for ]. ] (]) 15:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::That vegetarians etc buck the trend makes sense. If this is a conviction rather than a lifestyle choice, i.e. wanting to reduce your footprint rather than wanting the best for yourself and your family, then even poor vegetarians are prepared to pay the up-price. Should we mention the exceptions? I don't have a strong opinion on this, but feel the general trends are enough. I agree with changing the wording to the more cautious "Most studies report ....". ] (]) 17:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The problem with only mentioning smoking is that so few people now smoke in the western world, that although it doubtlessly correlates strongly, it is not very relevant. Income and fitness have a huge correlation with public health. which is why I am keen to see them listed. There are dozens and probably hundreds of publications analysing the nature of purchasers of organic food, mainly from a marketing perspective, most citing factors from numerous previous publications.. Unfortunately I could find no review focusing on this aspect, so below I am listing all the reviews on the correlation of organic food consumption with health. They describe the confounding factors in greater or lesser detail. I have copied the relevant text from each and pasted it just below the reference in italics. This is long so when the matter is settled please can an administrator delete it. If this is not deemed adequate to justify my original list I will go back to the dozens of primary sources to get more solid data. |
|
|
:::On reconsidering perhaps it is good to mention the idealists. A vegetarian who denies his or herself something enjoyable to help save the planet should be honoured. |
|
|
:::A Systematic Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food Consumption: Is There a Measurable Benefit on Human Health? Vanessa Vigar, Stephen Myers, Christopher Oliver , Jacinta Arellano , Shelley Robinson and Carlo Leifert. Nutrients 2020, 12(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12010007 |
|
|
:::''Regular consumers of organic food are most likely to be female, health-conscious, physically active, and in the higher brackets of education and income than their non-organic consuming counterparts . They are also more likely to have a higher ratio of plant to animal foods, with a strong relationship between vegetarian/vegan consumers and organic consumption . This consumer group generally has an increased wholefood dietary intake, as a result of both the general ethos of organic consumers (i.e., preference over processed/ultra-processed foods), and restricted use of additives in organic processed foods. Diet composition between organic and non-organic consumers may, therefore, be quite different''. |
|
|
:::Dangour, A.D.; Lock, K.; Hayter, A.; Aikenhead, A.; Allen, E.; Uauy, R. Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: A systematic review. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2010, 92, 203–210 https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2010.29269 |
|
|
:::''no confounding factors mentioned''. |
|
|
:::Jiang, B.; Pang, J.; Li, J.; Mi, L.; Ru, D.; Feng, J.; Li, X.; Zhao, A.; Cai, L. The effects of organic food on human health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies. Nutrition Reviews 2023, nuad124. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuad124 |
|
|
:::''Organic food consumers tend to be younger and thinner, with diets of higher nutritional quality, and they tend to be followers of a healthy lifestyle''. (1 citation) |
|
|
:::Azizur Rahman, Parnian Baharlouei, Eleanor Hui Yan Koh, Diana Gabby Pirvu, Rameesha Rehmani, Mateo Arcos, Simron Puri. A Comprehensive Analysis of Organic Food: Evaluating Nutritional Value and Impact on Human Health. Foods 2024, 13 (2) , 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13020208 |
|
|
:::''Considering affordability and perceived value majorly influence purchasing decisions, higher income levels often correlate with an increased likelihood of purchasing organic foods . In addition, higher levels of education are associated with greater awareness of health and environmental concerns related to food choices . Educated consumers may be more informed about the benefits of organic farming practices and choose organic products accordingly. A recent study investigating the organic purchasing intentions of Bangladeshi consumers uncovered a significant positive correlation between the level of education and the intention to purchase sustainable organic food. Specifically, the study found a 3.27-fold increase in organic food purchasing among consumers with higher levels of education . Other socio-economic factors that may influence organic purchasing decisions include age and gender, cultural dietary habits and health and wellness trends in the market .'' (9 citations) |
|
|
:::The again later in the same publication |
|
|
:::''Many of these experiments are short term and may be confounded by variations in dietary patterns and lifestyles that profoundly affect human health . Notably, observational studies often lack a comprehensive examination of the various health factors that may differ between organic and non-organic food consumers, such as lifestyle choices, physical activity levels and overall dietary patterns . These factors may be a source of confounding that significantly influence the health outcomes observed, precipitating the need for further longitudinal intervention studies. Nevertheless, the compounds found in organic fruits and vegetables are generally believed to promote human health and longevity . Consequently, individuals who consistently consume organic food often opt for more fruits and vegetables and less meat, potentially reducing the risk of mortality and chronic diseases . Additionally, research indicates that those who regularly choose organic food are more likely to be female, have higher education and income levels and maintain a healthier lifestyle by smoking less and engaging in more physical activity '' (4 citations) |
|
|
:::Mie, A.; Andersen, H.R.; Gunnarsson, S.; Kahl, J.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; Rembiałkowska, E.; Quaglio, G.; Grandjean, P. Human Health Implications of Organic Food and Organic Agriculture: A Comprehensive Review. Environ. Health 2017, 16, 111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-017-0315-4 |
|
|
:::''In observational studies, a specific challenge is the fact that consumers who regularly buy organic food tend to choose more vegetables, fruit, wholegrain products and less meat, and tend to have overall healthier dietary patterns . Each of these dietary characteristics is associated with a decreased risk for mortality from or incidence of certain chronic diseases . Consumers who regularly buy organic food are also more physically active and less likely to smoke .'' (4 citations) |
|
|
:::Anne Lise Brantsæter, Trond A. Ydersbond, Jane A. Hoppin, Margaretha Haugen, Helle Margrete Meltzer. Organic Food in the Diet: Exposure and Health Implications. Annual Review of Public Health 2017, 38 (1) , 295-313. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044437 |
|
|
:::''Already discussed above'' |
|
|
:::Marcin Barański, Leonidas Rempelos, Per Ole Iversen, Carlo Leifert. Effects of organic food consumption on human health; the jury is still out!. Food & Nutrition Research '''2017''', 61 (1) , 1287333. https://doi.org/10.1080/16546628.2017.1287333 . |
|
|
:::''However, there are a range of confounding factors that may have influenced the outcome of all cohort studies since organic and conventional consumers are known to differ in a range of other lifestyle factors (e.g. diet composition, use of medicines, health supplements and vaccinations, and/or levels of exercise, alcohol consumption, and smoking) which are often difficult to properly factor out in cohort studies .'' (3 citations) |
|
|
:::Bhagavathula, A.S.; Vidyasagar, K.; Khubchandani, J. Organic Food Consumption and Risk of Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare 2022, 10, 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10020231. |
|
|
:::''Finally, it could also be possible that consumers of organic foods could be more health-conscious or have more favorable social determinants of health'' . (4 citations) |
|
|
:::''In addition, a recent Danish study observed that people with generally healthy lifestyles, physical activities, and dietary habits were more likely to eat organic food'' . (1 citation) |
|
|
:::''Third, we cannot omit the residual confounding due to the specific profile of high organic food consumers. Fourth, organic food is generally more expensive (specifically in western countries) and it can be reasonably assumed that organic food is mostly consumed by individuals with higher socioeconomic status (SES). These individuals and population groups also have a lower prevalence of obesity; such confounding due to SES factors could limit the validity of our results as there were not enough details across all studies on SES of individuals included for this review.'' (no citations – only supposition) ] (]) 16:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I believe in Norway > 30% of adults smoke. I think the overall point of the review is that globally everything just too complex to make an overall statement. Anyway, I'm not sure the article should overly dwell on these 'characteristics' of organic food buyers, as this is an article about food, not consumers. The important thing to relay is how there's consensus there are no health benefits from organic food. ] (]) 16:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::There are a lot of smokers in Norway!! Yes - things are impossible to deconvolute. I agree the section on "public perception" is too long and could happily be replaced by a couple of sentences with lists of the characteristics of buyers, and a list of their drivers (motivations), although it might vary from country to county. By the way the authors of the review are Norwegian, but the studies they cite are British, French, German and Norwegian, although I haven't read them. However I have spent many hours on this matter, even though as you correctly write it is not the most important thing in the world. But I have sunk my teeth into it to a certain extent. I would like to see income on the list, but am more than happy for a second opinion as to the validity of such a claim. I don't feel the original list would overburden the section. ] (]) 18:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Finally I found a review of the "who" as well as the "why". Kramer reviews five high-quality, population-based surveys of who buys organic food. In different countries they "paint a fairly clear portrait". So I will insert the list again with more careful wording "Several high quality surveys find that income, educational level, BMI, physical activity, dietery habits and number of children are associated with the level of organic food consumption." I will add Kramer's review in addition to the Brantsæter review These are marketing studies, and unrelated to the medicinal aspects, and really should not be controversial. However if this is still not OK, than I am happy to have another go. ] (]) 15:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Looks like a reasonable source but I am having trouble ]erifying the text you added. What is it in the source, for example, that supports assertions about the relationship between BMI and organic food? ] (]) 16:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::BMI came from the Brantsæter review, but as Kramer writes, "Only the associations with overweight and obesity were adjusted for confounding due to other participant characteristics". The relation with BMI and physical acitivity is clearly tight, so let us delete BMI from the list. Sewn twice as they say in Switzerland. I'll delete it. ] (]) 10:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC) |
What is actually the problem here with ecologic and biological food? Both terms redirect to this article and you can simply verify the interwiki's to see that they are nearly the only used terms in Europe. Only a few use organic, which does not simply translate to ecologic or biological. --Wickey (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
The sentence I wrote "It has been demonstrated that income, educational level, BMI, physical activity, dietery habits and number of children are associated with the level of organic food consumption*. (citing Brantsæter et al 2017) was modified to "In Norway, alcohol intake and smoking, as well as exercise and low BMI, were associated with higher levels of organic food consumption." I stand by my first sentence. The relevant section in Brantsæter et al contains the following sentence "Most studies report that organic consumption is closely linked to other health and lifestyle indicators, e.g., consumers often have higher education and income, have lower body-mass index (BMI), are more physically active, and have healthier diets than those who do not or seldom use organic food". They cite 5 publications. A similar list of factors appears in the following two reviews, which also cite the original papers.
A Systematic Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food Consumption: Is There a Measurable Benefit on Human Health? Vanessa Vigar, Stephen Myers, Christopher Oliver , Jacinta Arellano , Shelley Robinson and Carlo Leifert. Nutrients 2020, 12(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12010007
Azizur Rahman, Parnian Baharlouei, Eleanor Hui Yan Koh, Diana Gabby Pirvu, Rameesha Rehmani, Mateo Arcos, Simron Puri. A Comprehensive Analysis of Organic Food: Evaluating Nutritional Value and Impact on Human Health. Foods 2024, 13 (2) , 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13020208
Perhaps it is only my experience and observation, but I would have thought that these correlations would be not at all controversial, and would be what we all would have judged to be the case if we were to guess. Therefore unless anyone has a serious objection, I will reinstate the first sentence.
