Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::The idea of ] is to make ''reasonable'' requests for sources. Asking for a source for every sentence and/or word is not reasonable. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 20:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::The idea of ] is to make ''reasonable'' requests for sources. Asking for a source for every sentence and/or word is not reasonable. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 20:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::banner, you are just being pointy and you are not actually engaged in the discussion of content and sources, just disrupting it. please join, or go away. 21:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::banner, you are just being pointy and you are not actually engaged in the discussion of content and sources, just disrupting it. please join, or go away. 21:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Jytdog, I have all the right to be here and to be critical who you treat/strangle this article. You are clearly not here to improve the article but to prevent that something positive is coming into the article. So stop disrupting the article. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 21:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:10, 20 August 2014
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.
Add Images of fresh, organic fruit - or from Farmer's markets - something that captures organic food and is interesting to look at!
Deal with "Citation Needed" notices
Sentences already with them - Try to find a reference online for them and put them on this page. If a reference can't quickly or easily be found...Remove all bias even if well meant.
Sentences that need them - Find sentences that are debatable, controversial and list them as "citation needed". Then follow the previous instruction right above.
Priority 3
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Certified Organic Catagories
Maybe this should go under first topic: Definition.
There are four different levels or categories for organic labeling.
1)‘100%’ Organic: This means that all ingredients are produced organically. It also may have the USDA seal.
2)‘Organic’: At least 95% or more of the ingredients are organic.
3)’Made With Organic Ingredients': Contains at least 70% organic ingredients.
4)‘Less Than 70. Organic Ingredients’: Three of the organic ingredients must be listed under the ingredient section of the label.
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).“USDA organic: what qualifies as organic?" Massage Therapy Journal Spring 2011: 36+. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Mar. 2014.
Tperki10 (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
in series of difs, Doc James made a series of edits that I mostly reverted today. Two main issues:
It is not true that in the scientific literature, differences between organic and conventional produce are controversial. Every serious review, including the most recent one, acknowledges that it is very hard to draw generalizations from the data at hand, due to variability in the actual things being tested (due to a) differences in how they are grown (soil, fertilizer, weather, seed, in any given region in any given year); b) differences in what transpires between harvest and testing (how far do they travel, what is done to them in the meantime), and c) what is actually tested for. Furthermore, everybody agrees that it is nigh onto impossible to draw conclusions about health effects between eating conventional and organic, due to the difficulty and expense of designing and running a meaningful clinical trial. So - nothing is contoversial from within science.
I object to the 2014 meta analysis being added to the lead. It found differences in cadmium and antioxidants, but again, it drew no conclusions about health effects. Different studies are going to find different things - this nutrient or that anti-nutrient are going to be higher or lower in this or that study. The key thing, and I again emphasize this - no study, not even the 2014, draws conclusions that organic food is healthier.
It is totally fine to cite and use the 2014 meta-analysis (of course!) but I fail to see why it belongs in the lead or causes any dramatic changes to this article.Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
It should be in the lead. It's the most definitive meta-analysis to date. There is no rule that says only health effects can be covered in the lead. It's a fact that organic food has less pesticide residue, higher anti-oxidants, and less cadmium. Fine if it's not claimed that these are health effects, but odd to completely omit. TimidGuy (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
One problem here is that none of the variables mentioned here have been unambiguously tied to health. Antioxidants have variously been found to increase or decrease the risk of cancer/mortality, or to have no effect for example here, here, and here.Formerly 98 (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
TimidGuy we don't discuss details of any of the recent reviews in the lead, nor should we (in my opinion... I don't know how we would summarize that mass of data, but i am open to suggestions). And if we are going to, it seems to me that we would have to provide detail about how they are not different as well, and deal with very recent reviews that found different things. You have provided no reason under WP:WEIGHT nor WP:NPOV to justify describing just the two positive findings for organic food from the 2014 meta review in the lead. Please do so. Also the lead does mention differences in chemical composition... Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Taste section
The "Taste" section of the article ironically brings up the an issue related to the somewhat arbitrary line between organic and non-organic agriculture. While the paragraph refers to artificially ripening fruits with the "chemical" ethylene, ethylene is in fact a naturally produced hormone produced by most fruit bearing plants as part of their regulation of fruit ripening. We don't call vitamin C a chemical when it is extracted from citrus and compressed into a pill for human consumption at large multiples of any possible natural exposure, but concentrating the natural product ethylene and applying to to fruit at concentrations similar to those found in nature is "chemical"? It seems like the language of the paragraph needs to be modified, but I"m not sure how to do it without wandering into WP:OR. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In the course of the discussion about how to handle the 2014 meta review, I just want to let new folks here know that the current structure of the article was the result of a looooong negotiation. (much of it is here but it is in other archives as well.) The crux of the conflict, was the conflation of two separate questions -- 1) is organically produced food chemically different from conventionally produced food in any generalizable way, and 2) to the extent those differences exist, do they matter for health? By separating those two topics carefully, we were able to settle the article content to the satisfaction-enough of all the parties involved at that time, which was a happy thing. If we want to revisit that consensus, let's do that consciously and carefully. Anyway, to maintain that, I moved content introduced by Formerly 98 in this dif, down into the health section. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
the content was great, thank you! just thought i should let everybody know about the structure thing - your edit just prompted it. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
actually just the first sentence was unsourced. everything else is sourced. Thanks for pointing that out. Very grateful you are working to expand the article - please just follow WP:VERIFY. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
To explain, what needs sourcing is the claim that " This perception originated in the early days of the organic movement as a result of publications like The Living Soil, Gardening and Farming for Health or Disease, and later Silent spring and periodicals like Mother Earth News and Prevention Magazine." How do I verify that it is true that the perception originated from those publications? That is what you need a source for. Without a source, the content is indeed WP:OR. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Redbaron, really, I am glad you are improving the article. The section is public perception. lan's book makes it clear that "the living soil" Blafore, etc are important for organic movement "geeks", as it were but are not what made organic Important to the Public. Pollan talks about the Alar scare, about silent spring, and other stuff. Not Howard/Balfore/Rodale. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Right, and the first sentence I didn't write, nor do I have any knowledge or belief it is even true or could even be backed up. I left it so as to "tread lightly" on other editors work. However, the public perception of the health benefits of organic food precedes the existence of an "organic industry" by many decades. In fact it is the perception that was already well established that marketers for the organic industry are attempting to exploit! The marketing wouldn't even exist if the perception wasn't there already! Marketing of organic by industry is simply filling a demand in the marketplace that already existed. As far as what I wrote, I just added a citation to Pollan's book where it explains the influence of early writers like Howard and Rodale. Is that enough? Shall I go find more?Redddbaron (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Redbaron, I mentioned the first sentence to acknowledge that you were correct that the rest of the paragraph was lacking in sourcing. What are you objecting to? As for the rest of what you write, I have been trying to tell you for a while now, that content needs sourcing. What is the support for the rest of what you added? The idea of WP:VERIFY is that a reader can go read the footnote you provide, to verify that what you added is true. (along those lines, if you cite a book, you should give a page number or reasonable range of numbers.) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
banner, you are just being pointy and you are not actually engaged in the discussion of content and sources, just disrupting it. please join, or go away. 21:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog, I have all the right to be here and to be critical who you treat/strangle this article. You are clearly not here to improve the article but to prevent that something positive is coming into the article. So stop disrupting the article. The Bannertalk21:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
