Talk:Organic food - Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by A. Randomdude0000 (talk | contribs) at 14:55, 17 October 2024 (Restored revision 1233688387 by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk): WP:NOTFORUM). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 14:55, 17 October 2024 by A. Randomdude0000 (talk | contribs) (Restored revision 1233688387 by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk): WP:NOTFORUM)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Organic food article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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.

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:

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.

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal 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.

Agriculture Mid‑importance

	Agriculture portal 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.

Horticulture and Gardening Mid‑importance

	Gardening portal 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.

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

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Only eat organic? You’re paying too much, and it’s not worth it, author says

Bio and eco

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)

Confounding factors when comparing health effects

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.

Bosula (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the source continues with a massive caveat after where you stop:

However, this pattern does not necessarily apply when organic food consumption is related to an alternative lifestyle that includes vegetarianism, environmentalism, or other ideologies.

and is preceded by a more general qualifier:

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 WP:V. Bon courage (talk) 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 ....". Bosula (talk) 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.

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)

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) Bosula (talk) 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. Bon courage (talk) 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. Bosula (talk) 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. Bosula (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable source but I am having trouble WP:Verifying the text you added. What is it in the source, for example, that supports assertions about the relationship between BMI and organic food? Bon courage (talk) 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. Bosula (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Categories: