Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 21:13, 2 January 2013 (→Where are we going with respect to health claims?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

Archives

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

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

WP:MEDRS

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

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

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

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

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

It's inevitable that an article on organic food will touch on health - since nutrition (or avoiding consumption of pesticides &c) is often perceived to be an advantage of organic food. It's reasonable to expect a MEDRS for that kind of content, especially due to the neutrality problems in this area (there are lots of lower-quality sources making very dubious claims). Outside that - say, content about farming techniques or the economic side - then of course we don't need a MEDRS. bobrayner (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So you lock out loads of scientific sources, even agricultural science, as soon as it contains health claims? That you need reliable sources, true. That there is a load of garbage disguised als articles, true. But starting to measure ONLY along the lines of a notorious difficult accessible medical index, makes no sense. That gives undue weight to the medical side of the article. The Banner _talk 11:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest looking at the papers that cite the one you added. One review says: "The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods", Huber, Machteld (1 November 2012). "The challenge of evaluating health effects of organic food; operationalisation of a dynamic concept of health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 92 (14): 2766–2773. doi:10.1002/jsfa.5563. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). It comments that your study "reported differences in nutrient levels without assessing the statistical significance of those differences or weighting outcomes by sample size". IRWolfie- (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments to The Banner: 1) Pubmed is an international indexing, not an American one (as would be clear to anyone who searched the index for journals with the word "British" in the title - hundreds of results come up). 2) We should be using medical journals for medical information, and agricultural journals for agricultural information. I would have the same objection if someone tried to use the The New England Journal of Medicine or BMJ for purely agricultural info. Yobol (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I would say that food quality and food nutrition is an agricultural concern, not exclusively a medical one. The Banner _talk 14:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

factorfizzle.com appears to be self-published, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, on a second look it did not seem to be very reliable. But the part I added was based on a university study by an agricultural department. Not so likely to be included in een medical index, but, as far as I can tell, not an unreliable source, certainly not in its field of expertise. The Banner _talk 12:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS is not required for an article such as this one, which is within the scope of WIkiProject Agriculture. WP:RS is all that is needed; peer-reviewed journals are fine, university published sources are fine. Limiting source material to MEDRS would unnecessarily restrict reliable information on this topic. It makes about as much sense as requiring a MEDRS source for citing info on the death of John Lennon 04:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

With respect to discussion of health-related aspects of organic food or any topic, WP:MEDRS must govern. As the lede to that policy states: "Misplaced Pages's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." The discussion of the health benefits, or lack thereof, in this article is very important -- belief in health benefits is a reason for buying organic food. (a reason, not the only one). Discussion of health benefits clearly falls under WP:MEDRS. And the key thing in WP:MEDRS, from my viewpoint, is the emphasis on using secondary sources (reviews) instead of primary sources (single studies), to state the scientific consensus whatever it may be, and however definite or indefinite it may be -- and especially in cases where the consensus is "we don't know for certain yet", stating that ambiguity honestly and clearly. Too often editors want to make definite factual statements on these issues, when definite factual statements are not supportable, and too often editors rely on single studies to try to make definite statements. If people want to believe that organic food is more/less/as healthy than non-organic, that's all fine and good, and the article should probably have a section on "perception of organic food". But when describing facts about health benefits of organic food or lack thereof in wikipedia - or at least the scientific consensus on what we know and what we don't, then WP:MEDRS must govern. It is exactly for this kind of thing that WP:MEDRS was created -- to help ensure that discussion of health claims in wiki articles is sound. That's what I think, anyway.Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Wrong policy. MEDRS is not applicable here, as this isn't a medical article. Belchfire-TALK 16:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The policy says "biomedical information in all types of articles". Whether people who eat organic food are healthier for doing so or not, is biomedical information. Most importantly, we want the article to be great, to withstand the scrutiny of a person from any side of the debate on this. I looked over some of this thread that last night... There seems to be some misunderstandings about what kind of journal can be used under WP:MEDRS. Toxicology is a very important medical science. You find individual toxicology studies all over the place -- in ag journals, for instance. You also find individual nutrition studies all over the place. The journal type is not the focus of WP:MEDRS -- the focus is on stating the scientific consensus, based on the best secondary sources one can find; primary (individual) studies are to be used only with care. If there is an awesome review of the state-of-science in a reputable ag journal, that is arguably fine under WP:MEDRS. I hope that helps. To those who celebrate it, merry christmas; to all - have a great day. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree and thank you. I am having organic prime rib dinner today. Merry Xmas. TFD (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no "biomedical" information in this article. This isn't a medical topic, and this isn't a medical article. Pretending otherwise is simply a smokescreen to give cover to a misapplication of policy that favors POV-pushing. Belchfire-TALK 04:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

See the lead, "scientific evidence has not shown a consistent and significant difference between organic and more conventionally grown food in terms of safety nutritional value...." Also the section Organic food#Health and safety. Nutrition and toxicology are medical issues. TFD (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but those are not medical claims. This article is about food; it's not about drugs or medical treatment. Belchfire-TALK 05:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You could argue over nutritional value, but food safety is most definately a medical claim. AIRcorn (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

While the nutritional analysis of food is not medical, whether or not a food is a good source of nutrition is. TFD (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Nutricion isn't medicine. It's science, but not medicine. There's a difference. Belchfire-TALK 06:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Medicine is both an art (the practice of medicine) and a science (the study of medicine). See also: clinical nutrition and medical nutrition therapy. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

True, but here the nutritional value is more used as food labelling. The Banner _talk 11:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've thought this argument through. Sourcing guidelines for WP:MEDRS are what all of our topics should aspire to regardless of subject matter. Food labeling refers to organic certification. Any argument for such food labeling has implicit arguments for human health attached. This is academic. Instead of fighting against WP:MEDRS, you should embrace it. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A comment and a question.
1) Comment: In the US, the dietary supplement industry has exploded over the past twenty years. (This may be true worldwide, but I can't speak with any confidence about wellness trends outside the US). From a report on the dietary supplement industry in the US: "wellness has become an important trend among Americans, with consumers showing ever greater interest in a more holistic approach to their health.... Healthy consumers use supplements to decrease their risk of heart disease, boost their immune systems, prevent vision loss, build strong bones, or prevent birth defects. Less healthy or ill consumers turn to supplements as an alternative to traditional medical treatments, to either complement prescription drugs they may be taking or substitute supplements for prescription drugs they either cannot afford or do not trust." (http://naturalproductsfoundation.org/clientuploads/NPF%20-%20Economic%20Impact%20Study.pdf) And my strong sense is that people have turned to organic foods for the much the same reason - to be more well, and to avoid perceived risk to their health from food that is produced by Big Ag. This notion of "wellness" is just hugely important here in the US. It is important commercially, with companies that play in the dietary supplement (or as they sometimes like to call it, "nutraceutical") space, as well as "functional food" space; the exercise industry, etc... and "advisors" like Dr Oz et al selling whole lines of goods and themselves. The medical community is also plugged into this -- doctors, insurance companies, employers, etc are all doing what they can to promote healthy habits and behaviors and doing what they can to discourage unhealthy ones - increasingly, the practice of medicine is focused not only on diagnosing and treating disease, but on preventing disease and improving health. The medical establishment takes this stuff seriously - the NIH has even paid for several, very expensive, clinical trials of dietary supplements (to see for instance, if anti-oxidants like Vitamin E can really prevent cancer). The commercial wellness industry, and the medical industry, are very well aligned in some aspects of the pursuit of wellness, and are uneasy allies in others. Well aligned -- quitting smoking, getting exercise, eating lots of fruits and veggies. In some ways they are not so well aligned... e.g the marketing of dietary supplements with dubious health claims, the fringes of the wellness industry that cast doubt on the whole enterprise of western science. But in any case, these "health and wellness claims" are all around us in the US, all the time. Consumers are awash in an ocean of them. And as I said above, perceptions about the "better for you"-ness of organic food - less risk of subtle poisoning from pesticide residue, fear of harm from GM food, perception that there is more nutrition in organic food than in Big Ag produce -- these are part of that much larger discussion about wellness, and are a big reason that people in the US buy organic food. And going back again to MEDRS: "Misplaced Pages's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information." It is really important to me that Misplaced Pages state clearly what is known -- what the scientific consensus is - on health benefits of products/services that people consider and consume with regard to their health. Misplaced Pages should not repeat unsubstantiated marketing claims of any industry. It should give the scientific consensus on the health benefits/detriments of smoking, exercise, various food classes, various dietary supplements, various drugs, etc etc. And of organic food. People need good information on products/services related to their health and they come to Misplaced Pages for it. So that section of the article, not the whole article- should use MEDRS, which was written precisely to help editors write great content on health matters. That is why I care about this - people are awash in health claims and wikipedia is a place they come to, looking for reliable information. Banner and Belch, I don't understand why you keep referring to "the whole article." The policy very clearly states, "health-related content in any type of article". It doesn't get more clear than that. Which leads to my question.
2) Question: I apologize for asking this as I know I have come late to the party, but Banner and Belch and others in opposition, why are you, respectively, objecting to MEDRS? Banner I had a look at your talk page, and saw that you wrote, with respect to MEDRS: "Their stance to allow only reliable sources related to medicins in an article about food and agriculture it utter nonsense. Especially, because WP:MEDRS does not mention food. Those guys seem to close their eyes for reality and in the process produce a one-sided, POV-article. But no harm, I will work around it. The truth must be said and even Big Companies can be brought down." I really don't understand where you are coming from on this.. can you please explain? Real question, not rhetorical. I am not asking what your arguments are, but rather, why you are making them - where are you coming from? Banner, what do "big companies" have to do with applying MEDRS to the sections on health (nutrition, toxicity) of organic food? I am looking for something parallel to what I wrote above - I tried to say why I care about this. I hope it made sense and helped you understand where I am coming from. I look forward to hearing from you all. I would really like to understand. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Health and Safety" section

Perhaps it would be better to remove the whole section "Health and Safety". First, scientifically it is a battleground. Second, the massive food industry will weigh in with their money, paying for scientific research that has a WP:COI. Third, the exclusion of sources, giving undue weight to the medical side of the story. The Banner _talk 13:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No. The supposed health and safety effects are a major reason why people consume organic foods; flat out removal of the section is grossly inappropriate. If there are problems with WP:DUE, it can be addressed without ignoring the topic. Hand-waving objections about conspiracies by corporations are probably not going to go anywhere. Yobol (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, the same food large companies make both organic and non-organic produce; organic food is highly profitable. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Monsanto into organic food? I don't think so. GMO is absolutely prohibited in organic production. Just look at the organic standards (at least the European ones) The Banner _talk 14:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Potential COI: I grow vegetables, non-organic.

Just FYI - Monsanto has a big line of vegetable seeds that are not genetically modified. They breed new varieties that are valuable to conventional as well as organic growers.Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Large food companies" ≠ GMO. Organic food is big business, and still benefits from economies of scale just like modern agriculture. Nothing wrong with big business, of course. If you have evidence that the sources we rely on are inherently bad because of the massive food industry weighing in with their money, that would be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Nasty question: can you prove that the source we rely on, are really independent and neutral? Did you notice that every time there is a favourable report about organic food, it is followed by a report discrediting it? Strange at least. The Banner _talk 14:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

When there are studies lacking rigour it's not a conspiracy when someone points this out. You may as well argue that when a report is released favourable of astrology it is followed by a report discrediting it and this indicates a conspiracy. Conspiracies by their very nature lack verification. If you want to posit a grand conspiracy by the "big grain" to push down "big organic" then do that elsewhere. I'm not sure what you mean by the "medical side of the story". There is no "other side" when it comes to health. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

When supposedly "rigorous" studies are wholly funded by major corporations such as Monsanto, that too is suspicious. It's remarkably easy to have a university researcher to publish favorable results with unlimited funding. We may also need to add some of the political issues as well. Montanabw 04:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that our editing should be governed by such conspiracy theories. Got sources? bobrayner (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what the objection is. Is there some specific content in this section that is supposedly not neutral? A specific reference that is objectionable? This kind of blanket discussion is not going to be fruitful so please be specific. Thanks 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs)

I think the issue is here is a debate to use only MEDRS versus WP:RS. There is no need for there to only be MEDRS sources here to the exclusion of other material that will pass WP:RS. My point is that peer-reviewed literature and studies that appear in such sources are often not supportive of alternative views, and a lot of mainstream research is funded from corporate sources. Thus, particularly in fields such as this one, to limit sources to only things that appear in Pubmed will, inherently, create a POV bias that is not appropriate for a comprehensive article, leaving behind only an anti-organic, pro-corporate agriculture viewpoint that defeats the intent of wikipedia and the NPOV pillar. Montanabw 18:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You are making very specific claims about a conspiracy with absolutely zero evidence. For health claims we use MEDRS. Your objections sound like special pleading. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to waste time on this article as I have other projects. You all know damn well that MEDRS is not the only reliable source for wikipedia articles that only tangentially have health claims, and thus, while they are clearly WP:RS sources, others are allowed. And you also know damn well that corporate America is hostile to claims that organic products are superior. I'll let those who care about this article continue to defend their materials, but I am simply here to offer them support. I know you Wolifie, and I know you have an obsession with MEDRS that approaches Meatbot behavior. I just don't have the time or energy to deal with you. Montanabw 20:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The text in question is not "tangentially" related to a health claim; it is a health claim about the safety of the food. Yobol (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And again, RS is appropriate, MEDRS is not mandatory. Both mainstream and alternative sources are needed to avoid an anti-organic food POV, and really, do we need MEDRS for things as obvious as "oranges contain vitamin C" ? I don't think so, note WP:POPE. Montanabw 22:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

When dealing with contentious topics, we should be using the best sources. We are not sourcing "oranges contain vitamin C", we are sourcing contentious claims about the safety and health of specific foods. In this case, MEDRS are the best sources. We don't come to a neutral point of view by presenting all sides with equal weight, but by giving due weight to what the best sources say. If the scientific sources do not support organic foods, then so be it. We do not include random sources to "balance" things out. Yobol (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you take organic farming seriously, Yobol? The Banner _talk 22:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, have you seen the feedback on this article? Comments as The article is one sided, slanted towards big agri-business. Studies have shown that consuming pesticides over a long period of time is harmful to one's health. This article denies this., This is not an objective page., Very one sided and you dont have real informnastion make clear that there IS a problem with this article. The Banner _talk 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that not every claim in this article needs WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Not even every scientific claim needs it. But we really do benefit our readers by insisting on WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing for health claims, and claims about health effects on humans of organic vs. non-oragnic food clearly falls in the realm of health claims. Zad68 23:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We do our readers a great disservice if we violate our own guidelines and policies to please random people on the internet. Our role is not to write to please people in our feedback; it is to write a good article based on our policies, no matter if some readers personally find the final results biased. Yobol (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong, Yobol. We are here to write a good and reliable article that offers the public a complete view on the subject. Not a one-sided affair, hijacked by a silly WP:MEDRS-guideline that will never, never, never permit an objective article. The Banner _talk 00:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we are here to write a complete article as dictated by the reliable sources. For health claims, that means MEDRS compliant sources. Once again, we don't include sources that are not reliable just because they mention a different point of view. Yobol (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

When is that decided? By whom? Do you have links to a vote or RfC? The Banner _talk 01:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As always, with consensus. The consensus is clear that WP:MEDRS applies to all health claims. You can certainly try to adjust that consensus at WT:MEDRS, though it is doubtful it will work. Yobol (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Yobol. I don't want your personal opinion. I want facts. So: When is that decided? By whom? Do you have links to a vote or RfC? The Banner _talk 10:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. If you are asking when MEDRS was decided to govern sourcing for health claims, that would be when it was promoted to guideline status by the community. See WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Then let me spell it out: you use this WP:MEDRS as a policy, carved in stone and protected by the whole Russian and American Army together. In fact, it is nothing more then a guideline. Guidelines are not mandatory, as policies are. But you, and your friends, use it as such.

What makes you so afraid of alternative sources? Agricultural research on universities is just as reliable as any other research done by universities. It is only published in other journals. The Banner _talk 15:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-MEDRS are by-and-large inferior sources when it comes to health information. When an article is published in a journal outside its scope, and that information conflicts with results published in more relevant journals, that is a huge red flag. You have two choices at this point: attempt to get WP:MEDRS changed to fit your personal view, or attempt to get consensus here that WP:MEDRS does not apply or that that article is appropriate as a source. Either way, further discussion about this seems like a waste of time at this point. (I note that you conspicuously left out of your multiple Wikiproject notices that you left out Wikiproject Medicine, the one Wikiproject with the most experience with WP:MEDRS.) Numerous other editors have stated they do not feel your interpretation of MEDRS is correct or that that article should not be used. Yobol (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you prove that, mr. Yobol? Can you really prove that agricultural sources about food health and safety are really inferiour in quality? The Banner _talk 18:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not wasting more time on this. If you can get consensus that this source is allowable, it goes in. If you can't, it won't. Further repetition on my end does not appear to be an efficient use of my on-wiki time. Yobol (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so you have no facts to prove your stance. That is now clear enough. The Banner _talk 18:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So, if I finds books supporting that organic food is safe and healthy, they are allowed? According to Yobol restore; books aren't indexed in pubmed, so not finding them there is not a reason to remove. The Banner _talk 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Books that meet WP:MEDRS can certainly be used (see the section on books). In this case, the author of the book in question is Robert Blair, who has quite the resume, and is published in an academic publisher (Wiley-Blackwell). If the authors have significant academic credentials such as Blair's, and is published by an academic publishing company, certainly it can be considered for addition. Yobol (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You should start reviewing your own sources a bit. By now, I have seen several who are unable to say that organic food is healthier or safer. Unfortunately, most of them claim that there are not enough well-controlled studies performed, to make a valid claim. Could you look at the sources and change the text accordingly? Thanks. The Banner _talk 21:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Our article says neither is significantly healthier or safer, which is what our sources say. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Yobol (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Both Kouba and Bourn stated that there was in fact just not enough research done to give a clear verdict. And I have found that by now also in other articles. The Banner _talk 23:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If there has not been enough research (i.e. evidence) to show a difference, then that's what we say (there is no significant evidence of a difference). Perhaps you should read null hypothesis. Yobol (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice try. But what I read as statement from the authors in those article is plain: "I don't dare to say it is safer/healthier or not. based on the available research, I just don't know." Or, you can't prove it and you can't deny it. Would you have the same outcome when you allow the use of agricultural peer-reviewed university published studies into organic food? The Banner _talk 00:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no idea what you're talking about. And since we're back to talking about non MEDRS sources, I'm back to recognizing this as a waste of my time. Cheers. Yobol (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And again, no arguments. The Banner _talk 19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your statement is so generic as to be meaningless. If you find a book it will be judged on its merits of being a reliable source of medical information. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Switch of you tunnelvision, IRWolfie. You are talking about food, not about medicins.

And secondly, I am not impressed by your threats on my talkpage to take me to AN/I when I go on giving Yobol a hard time. Those threats are incivil and agressive on its own. I can understand that you want to scare me away, but that is not going to happen. This threat only confirm me that that you lack proper arguments. The Banner _talk 19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Details of specific POV issues?

TheBanner appears interested in placing POV tags on this article, but this Talk page does not detail specific POV issues and how they can be remedied. A tag like the POV tag needs active Talk page discussions that provide specific detail about the concerns and how they can be remedied, so that the problems can be addressed and the tags removed. This is especially true for an article-wide tag, which indicates that an editor is concerned that the entire article has significant POV problems. TheBanner pointed to the WP:MEDRS and Removal of "Health and Safety" section discussions, but they do not provide specific, actionable detail about the apparent POV concerns. The WP:MEDRS section discusses which sourcing guidelines should be applicable, and the Removal of "Health and Safety" section discussion has wandered into off-topic territory. There are no active Talk page discussions to support the POV tags. If the tags are replaced, please open a Talk page discussion and provide specific detail about actionable concerns. Cheers... Zad68 04:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The way you kill off this discussion is evidence on its own that you don't want a different opinion and different sources in the article. Excluding different opinions is favouring specific opinions = POV. Look up the now removed section about homeopathy and the strong POV statement attached to it. As long as this article is hijacked by a narrow opinion about valid sources, it will never be neutral. But I surrender to the CABAL. The Banner _talk 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Strong POV? You added unsourced claims that homeopathy works; in direct contradiction to the body of sources about homeopathy. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not. Instead of twisting my words, you could have read properly what I wrote The Soil Association's organic standards encourage the use of effective homeopathy and prevention on livestock, using veterinary medicines only in emergencies. That is a neutral comment about what the Soil Association recommends in her Organic Standards. You can look that up in the source given in the article. But is was you coming up with POV-statements as "There is no such thing as effective homeopathy" and "However, homeopathy is not effective in treating any disease.". What you do, is adding an opinion to a statements available on paper and on the internet in sources provided by the Soil Association. You can read it yourself when your are willing to make the effort. The point of effectiveness of homeopathy is in this context irrelevant and POV. The Banner _talk 21:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? "The point of effectiveness of homeopathy is in this context irrelevant and POV" but it's you that added "effective" before "homeopathy" in the article.

Reliable sources are quite clear that homeopathy is not effective, and the mention of the Soil Association's support of homeopathy was hinting at one of the problems with the world of organic food; I'd avoided hammering the point home, but if readers are missing that point, then I would happily flesh it out a bit more, to make clear the disconnect between the Soil Association's beliefs and reality. bobrayner (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Two things: 1) the "effective homeopathy" is a quote from their organic standards. 2) when you want "to make clear the disconnect between the Soil Association's beliefs and reality" you are judging the Soil Association in the wrong place. Do that in the article about the Soil Association, but in this article it is irrelevant and POV as it is discrediting organic food on a minor detail. Shall we judge Bill Clinton over the fact that he gave away some underpants and recorded them as gifts for charity on his tax returns and call him a tax cheater? Come on. The Banner _talk 22:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You think if the soil association thinks homeopathy is effective that means we should so it's effective? Have I summed that up correctly? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Switch off your tunnel vision, Wolfie, that is not what I say. What is said is: In her organic standards the Soil Association is referring to "effective homeopathy". You can quote that, if you like. But this article is not the place to make a judgement over homeopathy. When they believe homeopathy can be effective, fine. They have the right to think and say that. But this article is not the place to judge the effectiveness of homeopathy. The Soil Association made a statement, and we should state that (or leave it out) without any further comment or opinion about it. The Banner _talk 08:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You added text specifically saying homeopathy is effective despite that being contrary to the most reliable secondary sources. Do you deny that? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, I added a quote out of the Organic Standards of the Soil Association in which they mentioned "effective homeopathy". I did not say homeopathy is effective as my own opinion, I quoted. It was your judgement about the ineffectiveness of homeopathy that is out of place. In this context it is irrelevant to add a statement about the ineffectiveness, as the wikilink to homeopathy would make that clear enough. The Banner _talk 14:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC) And please, could you refrain from seeing edits wars when there are no edits war going on?

I find the comment "And please, could you refrain from seeing edits wars when there are no edits war going on?" a little odd considering the article has been locked by an admin due to the edit warring. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, not odd: Protection request: no 3RR and your warning. The Banner _talk 19:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There was definitely edit-warring, which is why the admin protected the article. If there were not any edit-warring, the admin would not have protected it. There wasn't a 3RR violation, but a 3RR violation is not required for there to be edit-warring. If there were 3RR violations happening I would have filed a report at WP:3RRNB and there probably would have been blocks. It is better for the article to be protected and for us to discuss the issues here on the Talk page instead of editors getting blocks, isn't it? Zad68 19:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I do no see any editwarring, but I do see a serious content dispute. And I am not afraid of blocks or threats of blocks, a neutral Misplaced Pages is far more important. The Banner _talk 20:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree on content dispute, that's why hopefully we'll have agreement to go to DR. Based on my experience at Misplaced Pages, the edit history of the article page demonstrated edit-warring, and the fact that an admin full-protected the article for 10 days confirms it. As an academic exercise, ask admin CambridgeBayWeather for his input on it, as he was the one who reviewed the RFPP and subsequently protected the page. Zad68 20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Article protection

The article has been locked down due to the above dispute, and the last alternative version to the current, locked version contains the following paragraph. This version is one which I edited to restore a valid viewpoint and restore a POV balance to the article, BUT also changed from previous versions to clearly state who holds the position, dates, and other information to allow readers to draw their own conclusions from the data. I also made some small edits to other paragraphs to remove unnecessarily POV adjectives and create more neutral language. I removed two sentences sourced to dead links, these changes were also reverted. There appear to be no arguments presented above other than an insistence that MEDRS must be followed in this instance. However, that is an argument that makes no sense, as the MEDRS literature is already covered in the article and their dismissal of the organic food industry is well-discussed. As one the very core issues in the organic food industry is this very health and safety concern, to not discuss it at all in the article is to have the article have serious NPOV problems. It is my position that it is simplistic in the extreme to provide only the negative view without the positive view as well, and MEDRS is not an appropriate limitation on sources, though, clearly, such sources are, of course, preferred when available. Therefore, I recommend restoring the following paragraph, or, in the alternative, a similar expression of the concern raised by supporters of organic food, with reliable sources per WP:RS. Montanabw 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

However, a 1989 peer-reviewed study sponsored by the ] identified an association between consumption of pesticide residues from conventionally grown food and cancer risk.<ref name=Sewell>{{cite journal |author=Sewell B, Whyatt R |title=Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in Our Children's Food |journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |year=1989 |month=February |pmid= |doi= |url=http://docs.nrdc.org/health/files/hea_11052401a.pdf }}</ref> A 2012 risk assessment estimated that cancer benchmark levels in preschool children were exceeded for several toxic substances and recommended consumption of organic foods as one strategy for reducing risk. <ref name=Vogt>{{cite journal |author=Vogt R, Bennett D, Cassady D, Frost J, Ritz B, Hertz-Picciotto I |title=Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment |journal=Environmental Health |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages= |year=2012 |month=November |pmid=23140444 |doi= |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23140444 }}</ref> Proponents of organic food express concern that children are being exposed to hazardous levels of pesticides in fruits and vegetables. In 1989, NRDC estimated that 5,500 to 6,200 of the current population of American preschoolers may eventually get cancer "solely as a result of their exposure before six years of age to eight pesticides or metabolites commonly found in fruits and vegetables." This estimate was based on conservative risk assessment procedures, which indicate that greater than 50% of an individual's lifetime risk of cancer from exposure to carcinogenic pesticides used on fruit takes place during the first six years of life.<ref name=Sewell/> In a study conducted on children and adults in California, consumption of conventionally grown foods was associated with excessive cancer benchmark levels for all children for DDE, which was primarily sourced from dairy, potatoes, meat, freshwater fish, and pizza.<ref name=Vogt>{{cite journal |author=Vogt R, Bennett D, Cassady D, Frost J, Ritz B, Hertz-Picciotto I |title=Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment |journal=Environmental Health |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages= |year=2012 |month=November |pmid=23140444 |doi= |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23140444 }}</ref>

Please discuss below. Montanabw 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I had added the original version of the paragraph - from viewing the article's history I guess it's not surprising it was immediately removed. Essentially I think it's absurd that a long article on the pros and cons of organic food not contain a single sentence about pesticide resides potentially being a BAD thing when there's a large set of evidence that it is (that's published and peer-reviewed). I agree there's also many published studies suggesting it's safe but the article as it is written currently is obviously extremely biased against the benefits of organic food. Why would ONLY reviews (per a strict application of MEDRS) be allowed here, when it clearly isn't in any number of highly related articles (on specific pesticides and their health effects when ingested as residues, for starters)? Krem1234 (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Montana, first, let me commend you at starting this conversation. Honestly we're at an impasse here if there is still an insistence on using non-WP:MEDRS sources to try to support medical claims in articles. Having those claims carefully couched and qualified and attributed does not, in my evaluation, get past the WP:MEDRS requirement. I'd suggest we take it to dispute resolution as a start, because I don't see anybody here being convinced yet by the arguments of others. The center of the argument appears to be: Are the WP:MEDRS sourcing requirements in effect for medical claims in non-medical articles? I believe the Misplaced Pages consensus is Yes. We have 10 days until the article is unprotected, and we could be well along in making progress at WP:DR by then. Zad68 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if the application of MEDRS is necessary at all. You are talking about food here, not medicines or healthcare. But dispute resolution and/or an RfC might be a good way to start. The Banner _talk 20:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If you'd be OK with either, I'd prefer DR, as it should get us to a clear result faster. Zad68 20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I should have written it differently: dispute resolution including an RfC. I like to see outside input about the question if WP:MEDRS should be applied on food-articles or that WP:RS is sufficient. That question is in fact the source of the dispute. The Banner _talk 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope we can at least agree on how to phrase the issue for DR, then (or probably Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard). As I see it, the issue is first if MEDRS should be applied to THIS article? (irrelevant as to other food or agriculture articles, unless we really want to spend six months of dramah dealing with that question - I don't) Then I would refine this question further: if it does at all, then should MEDRS apply to the article a) in its entirety (i.e farming methods, chemistry questions, etc.) ; b) only for "medical" or "health" claims (whatever those are); and if B applies, then c) Is the question of pesticide residue entirely a medical claim subject to MEDRS in the first place or is it also a non-medical question involving politics and other issues (and if so, are these relevant to balance the NPOV of the article)? To me, the concern that pesticides in non-organic foods are harmful is akin to early claims that smoking is linked to lung cancer; mainstream researchers debunked those until the Surgeon General started looking at it. Most such concerns are raised long before there are sufficient mainstream studies to verify or debunk them. My own position is stated in MEDRS: "sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline." (My emphasis) Montanabw 23:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

DRN? Why not just ask at WT:MEDRS. People seriously want to include non-MEDRS sources about cancer risks? If so, an RfC is easy: "Should we use non-MEDRS sources to make claims about what causes cancer". IRWolfie- (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice twist, Wolfie, but that is not the case. The Banner _talk 03:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you disagree that claims about cancer risk where being added without using MEDRS sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant question, Wolfie. I was not adding information about cancer risks. The Banner _talk 16:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

: "However, a number of studies have identified an association between consumption of pesticide residues from conventionally grown food and cancer risk." That is explicitly information about cancer risks. You even used the word cancer risks. It's also a synthesis. You are using something from 1989 to counter something much later. More: "it was estimated that 5,500 to 6,200 of the current population of American preschoolers may eventually get cancer "solely as a result of their exposure before six years of age to eight pesticides or metabolites commonly found in fruits and vegetables." This estimate was based on conservative risk assessment procedures, which indicate that greater than 50% of an individual's lifetime risk of cancer from exposure to carcinogenic pesticides used on fruit takes place during the first six years of life." IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Any material that is health related falls under MEDRS, whether it is about medications or not. Note that those who are judging the NPOV of the material in this article based on their own personal interpretation of what they feel should be in the article, rather than letting the high quality secondary sources (in this case MEDRS) dictate the WP:WEIGHT of this article, have it exactly wrong. We use sources to dictate NPOV, not use our own views on the subject dictate which sources "should" be in the article to "balance" the POV. Yobol (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That is your interpretation, Yobol, and it is a rather narrow interpretation. What you do is giving undue weight to one type of sources (the medical sources), while completely ignoring other high quality reliable sources. By ignoring/outlawing agricultural sources in an article about food, you make the articles inherently POV. The Banner _talk 03:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Present the high quality secondary reviews that meet WP:MEDRS and we can talk. The sources you want to use don't qualify, so you try to shoehorn other sources in, or badly misread WP:MEDRS to justify bad sources. You start with finding good sources. You don't start by finding sources that meet the POV you want to push and try to push it into the article. Yobol (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) It sounds like you are proposing that because this is an article about food, and not some medical topic, WP:MEDRS should not apply. However, the WP:MEDRS guideline, which was promoted to guideline status four years ago, is not limited to articles about straight medical topics. From the guideline:

Misplaced Pages's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

Clearly the guideline is not limited to biomedical information only in medical articles, but "in articles," meaning, all Misplaced Pages articles. Food is eaten by humans and affects human health. The claims that were being proposed here were clearly biomedical claims, and WP:MEDRS applies. Zad68 04:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Having no particular horse in this race, and being a regular editor of articles on both medicine and some natural world topics, it strikes me that applying MEDRS here can only lead to an inherent POV bias, by excluding highly relevant articles which are published in reputable journals other than those strictly termed 'medicine'. This has the effect of introducing systemic bias, and some of tha arguments given above like "Should we use non-MEDRS sources to make claims about what causes cancer" are facetious and unhelpful to achieving a solution.

I would seem to me that, like other controversial topics, that the only suitable resolution is to lay the controversy out by mentioning appropriate peer reviewed journal articles which claim that an issue exist, and then setting out the review articles which run contrary. Not mentioning important theories is like talking about the MMR vaccine whilst not mentioning that article (which of course the article, part of the medicine wikiproject, does).

The view that pesticides etc. cause deleterious effects is not WP:FRINGE, as it is widely believed (and I pass no judgement on whether it is correct or not) and widely reported. As such, it seems entirely reasonable to insert a variation of the paragraph above, although probably with the balanced view in close proximity. OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 08:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I fact, the move into the cancer-debate is a distortion of the original question. Originally, we were talking about organic food being safer and healthier than conventional grown food, not focused on cancer as Wolfie is doing now. I came across a peer-reviewed article from the Agricultural Department of the University of Newcastle, claiming that organics grown food had some moore goodies than conventional grown food. Shot down, because is did not comply with WP:MEDRS. The Banner _talk 10:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC) It would be nice when it was disclosed who was paying for a certain study/research.

Our article already discusses pesticide residue in detail (an entire paragraph is dedicated to it). While it mentions some people believe organic food to be safer due to lower pesticide residues, determining the validity of that viewpoint must be based solely on WP:MEDRS compliant sources. In this case, the available high quality sources state that organic foods are lower in pesticide residues, but probably are not safer as both have pesticide residues lower than determined safe limits. There is no need to include random primary articles to artificially "balance" (and in this case, skew) the POV. Yobol (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I have contributed significantly to the MMR vaccine controversy article, and we mention and discuss "that" article at such length specifically because (not despite) high quality secondary sources (i.e. MEDRS) mention it. We, as editors, don't decide which individual primary articles are important to mention; we allow our high quality secondary sources to determine which are significant, and then we mention them. Yobol (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for showing your POV here so clearly, Yobol. The Banner _talk 11:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow your line of reasoning. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that. If you think organic food is nonsense, it is hard to be positive about it or see any POV as it just confirming your own personal ideas. The Banner _talk 16:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

 ? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that blanket application of the secondary source rule in this case creates a systemic POV problem, and whilst I appreciate your point about the particular article in question in MMR being pointed to, it was only illustrative. I can see no compelling argument to not use some selected primary articles to illustrate that the view is held by academics, who have produced peer-reviewed articles on the subject. At the moment, the article reads to me as if the only people who believe some of the points of contention discussed are uninformed members of the public, which, from the existence of primary research appears not to be the case. In fact, for at least one section, the point is specifically made in the cited review article that too little evidence exists to make a firm judgement - a clear cut case IMHO to use some primary sources, with appropriate caveats and balance.

In general, the article is full of slightly dubious statements, mostly tipping towards the anti-organic stance, like commenting on the naming convention to say that calling food organic or non-organic is "technically inaccurate and completely inappropriate when applied to farming, the production of food, and to foodstuffs themselves" without any sort of citation.

With no particular view on whether organic is or is not a desirable trait in food, this article does appear to reflect a clear bias, which judicious use of primary sources, with appropriate copy editing and balance, would do much to correct. OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 14:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This illustrates my point above about how this view of NPOV is incorrectly arrived at. You read the article, you decided it looked biased to you based on your personal opinion, and then are trying to add studies (even if they violate our guideline on sourcing) to correct the bias. That is manifestly the wrong way to go to develop a neutral point of view. We should be developing a NPOV by reading all the high quality sources and developing a neutral point of view by summarizing those good sources. For example, we do not add primary studies about how HIV does not cause AIDS to our HIV article because you or I think it is "biased" because it does not mention this; just go by what our high quality sources say. If good high quality sources that meet WP:MEDRS say organic food is safer or more nutritious, then great, let's add them (none have yet been presented). The absolute wrong approach is for individual editors to decide what bias an article should have before reading the sources, and adding inferior sources to match their own preference. We need to follow the high quality (in this case MEDRS) sources, not push the low quality ones on the article to push a POV.

If all the high quality sources say organic food is not significantly safer than conventional food, there just might be a good reason for that, other than perceived bias. Yobol (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to look at peer-reviewed sources looking at the matter from an agricultural viewpoint, Yobol? Do you think that agricultural departments of universities are second rank research institutions? Did you ever look into the quality of those sources? The Banner _talk 16:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

They generally don't specialize in cancer risks as far as I am aware. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There are more health issues then the cancer risks you so desperately cling on, Wolfie. It is quite likely that agricultural institution know much more about the presence of vitamins in parsnips than no matter what medical journal. And I think (I did not look it up yet) that they will know far more about genetically modified crops and the related health and ecological risks. Would you be willing to remove all health claims out of the article Agent Orange when those sources did not comply to WP:MEDRS? Or would you accept that there is wide coverage about health concerns outside WP:MEDRS-approved sources? The Banner _talk 16:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Peer review is not a cure all for reliability, as discussed in WP:MEDRS - there are other factors to consider. If you have a problem with WP:MEDRS, you can discuss that on the relevant talk page. Agricultural journals are generally reliable for agricultural issues (farming techniques etc) while biomedical journals are generally reliable for health related claims. In this case, we are making health claims, so we should be using biomedical journals. I would have the same objection to people using the BMJ for the intricacies of farming, despite its sterling reputation as a biomedical journal. This has been explained to you several times now. Yobol (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be funny to term it this way, but the Misplaced Pages sourcing guidelines pro-actively demand a "systemic POV problem" slanted toward mainstream, peer-reviewed, reliable secondary sources. If the application of the WP:MEDRS guidelines "slants" an article to present the best-quality mainstream consensus of scholarship about a particular biomedical claim, to the exclusion of sources that do not meet the standard, then we should be pleased with the result. That is exactly the "POV" the Misplaced Pages guidelines intend. Zad68 16:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with using reliable peer-reviewed articles. I don't think anyone is arguing against that, but that the strict application of the specific terms of MEDRS, which is looking for review articles, rather than individual research items seems inappropriate here. We should not be pleased with any bias in an article, and at the moment because of this application, it seems to be undue weight for one side, to the exclusion of what appear to be academic articles which meet all the provisions of WP:RS, just not the some authors particular interpretation of MEDRS. MEDRS has these policies for a good reason - to prevent every tabloid health scare article based on one limited range study making up the content of our articles, but this is applying it beyond its purpose to restrict healthy and relevant sourcing.

Now, like I said, I don't have a particular view on this topic (despite Yobol seeming to think so), but I do have a strong view on biased editing. Nobody seems to be denying the other evidence of bias, and phrases like "based mainly on anecdotal evidence and testimonials rather than scientific evidence" don't help as that in itself isn't sourced to anything, and is contradicted by the existence of other peer-reviewed studies which could be mentioned in context. OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 16:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And a little further, i've been rechecking MEDRS, and actually I think it could support the inclusion of some primary articles (including relevant weight etc. as i've said repeatedly) - "it may be helpful temporarily to cite the primary research report, until there has been time for review articles and other secondary sources to be written and published. When using a primary source, Misplaced Pages should not overstate the importance of the result or the conclusions. If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning, they should be described as being from a single study." Now that all sounds very fair, and could help address the perceived bias. OwainDavies _(talk) edited at 16:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea whether you have a particular view on the topic, as I am not a mind reader. I do think that your conclusion that the text as is violates WP:NPOV is incorrect for the above mentioned reasons: you have decided that the text is biased, not based on what the best sources say, but due to your own personal preference on what you think it should look like. That is not how we should be writing this encyclopedia. The reason why we don't use primary studies like this is because there are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of health related primary studies done on organic studies, and we are not qualified to know which one are important or not based on our own evaluation. We depend on secondary reviews to make that decision for us, and to synthesize that information for us. MEDRS very specifically cautions us against using primary studies to rebut secondary reviews, which is what is being proposed here.

BTW, that phrase you mention actually is sourced (Magkos 2006, as indicated in the text) and is a paraphrase from the source (see the 1st and 2nd full paragraphs on page 24). As always, it helps if people actually read the sources before commenting. Yobol (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the whole terminology is already biased. About a 100 years ago, the whole farming industry was working on a way that today is called "organic farming". What is now called "conventional farming" is a relative recent invention that replaced the traditional style of farming. To remove that change, you have to be rather radical and rename "conventional farming" to "chemical and GMO-farming" and rename "organic farming" to "farming". But that would be such a major culture shock that at this moment the suggestion is not viable. The Banner _talk 21:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

OK. Here's the next question: Are we at an impasse? Has anyone changed their position from where they were several weeks ago? We have three or four primary editors and two or three other editors discussing this issue (endlessly) and I don't see anyone's position changing. And the neutral party here is getting accused of bias! Is there any place for a compromise on this issue? The organic food movement is not "fringe" even if it is not "conventional" and therefore, is there a place to carefully outline ALL more-or-less "mainstream" (NRDC is hardly a fringe group, and Monsanto, which funds research to "prove' their products are harmless, isn't exactly NPOV) views with the best sourcing available for each? Montanabw 23:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It depends. Do you think agricultural journals reliable for saying what causes cancer? Yes or no. Do you think adding a synthesis is a good idea? Yes or no. (please stop with the Monsanto conspiracy theories, you were asked for evidence, otherwise stop it) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast thing called "proof". There is "evidence." I have evidence. You are twisting my words. Some evidence is better than other evidence, and what WP does is outline what is in the two lanes on either side of the middle of the road, but considers stuff that drifts over the fog line as WP:FRINGE. Here, we just have info on one side of the road, and not the other. "Mainstream" science denied the tobacco-cancer link for decades. "Mainstream" science also once asserted with great certainty that the earth was the center of the universe. Montanabw 23:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I asked for your misinformed rant about tobacco cancer and the "evils" of science. I asked a specific question. Do you think agriculture journals are reliable for saying what causes cancer. Yes or no. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's your Monsanto info: evidence that Monsanto Corporation funds these studies that "debunk" organic food benefits. And, also add Cargill. There are other sources confirming the funding bias. There are also peer reviewed sources on the health risks of pesticides that can meet the MEDRS standard that are being completely ignored, see also , and Please don't tell me that a Presidential Report from NIH and another one won't pass muster here! Montanabw 23:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"motherearthnews", "The Cornucopia Institute". Are you serious. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

For a journalistic exposé that Monsanto and Cargill fund "studies" to debunk the dangers of pesticide use, absolutely! Let's also add reports from Huffington, and a discussion of methodological flaws from CBS News. My point is that your so-called "perfect" studies are as loaded with propaganda and bias as something from Greenpeace. Peer-reviewed journals in fields other than medicine have much to offer, particularly when they have unbiased research that can't be traced to agribusiness. Montanabw 23:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You are using shoddy sources and claim this indicates anything. So what if EWG complained? Do you think they are remotely trustworthy for anything? Do you think a partisan group which isn't publishing peer reviewed material is somehow more reliable than the actual peer reviewed material (in a relevant journal that is)? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's reverse this: Do you think Monsanto and Cargill are "remotely trustworthy" for anything that prevents a cut into their profit margin? If you really think you can believe that they have the "truth", then shall we discuss pro-corporate bias? And don't you think that exposing peer-reviewed research as corporate-funded is not relevant? "Peer-reviewed" does not equal "gospel from God and thus correct." Even the 2006 study cited in this article (I just finished skimming the actual article) states the limits to their review and urges more research. So yes, if a "partisan" group (Monsanto OR NRDC) points out flaws and errors in the other side's work, isn't that what NPOV is all about? Showing both sides, explaining the quality of the evidence, and giving the reader balanced information with which to draw their own conclusions? I ask you again: Are two reports from the NIH also "shoddy sources"? (And Wolfie, did you REALLY call psychotherapy a "pseudoscience" as is alleged in that RFC going on? Yes or no...) Montanabw 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We aren't using monsanto.com as a source. What monsanto funded source are you referring to. Point it out specifically so I can have a look at it. Did I call psychotherapy a pseudoscience? No I didn't, what the hell are you talking about, and what bearing does it have here? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think any credibility you had just went out the window by defending yourself using those sources. Seriously there are peer reviewed review articles that examine pesticide use and cancer, why are you resorting to ones that have no hope in hell of being used. Your anti science approach is not really helpful either, mainstream science is why we know the earth is not the centre of the universe. How about this , it says that "consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria." Haven't look inside in any detail, but surely you would be better off using these sources to base your argument on rather than motherearthnews. AIRcorn (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source? With this quote: Studies were heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present.? The Banner _talk 00:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If that is an accurate summary of current studies, then what is the issue? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me a review detailing its limitations in the abstract is a pretty good indication that it is reliable. AIRcorn (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Passing comment (not watching this page): The disputed text does some unfortunate WP:PEACOCKing of the study. See WP:MEDMOS on writing style. It would be important point out the age of the study (You want us to highlight a study from 1989? Really? Twenty-three years ago?), but the stuff about it being "peer-reviewed" and details like where the people live, is inappropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The claim that conventional agricultural methods lead to cancer while organic farming does not is a medical claim and therefore comes under MEDRS. Indeed Monsanto and other companies fund studies, but the reliability of these studies is how they are received by the scientific community, not who funded them. We can always find isolated studies whose findings contradict mainstream thinking and we normally exclude them unless we can establish that they are noteworthy, in which case secondary sources will explain the degree to which they are accepted. TFD (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Every claim that "something" causes cancer, can be dismissed straight away. At best you can say that that "something" gives a higher risk at cancer. But you should not lock the health claim on the risk of cancer, as there are far more factors involved in "healthy food" than the presence of "bad things". (sorry, not gonna try to find the right names) There are a lot of substances just working on the natural defenses of a person, thus enhancing the ability to fight off nasty diseases as the common cold and the flu. The Banner _talk 22:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW the recent study by the "Stanford researchers" which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine and is used as a source that organic food is no more nutritious or safe, does not appear to meet MEDRS either. It is not a peer-re viewed report, but an article written for a doctors' magazine. And its conclusions have not been substantiated, although they have been widely reported in the media. TFD (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, what? Annals of Internal Medicine is one of the most prestigious medical journals, having an Impact factor around 16 (placing it in the top 5 of all general medical journals, in the same league as BMJ, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine), is clearly peer reviewed and MEDLINE indexed. Your assessment of this journal could not be more off base. (Doctor's magazine? Seriously?) Yobol (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just briefly glanced at the magazine. They provide a variety of types of articles, and has you point out this report was peer-reviewed. But I wonder if this is missing the point. According to "Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999", there have been significant reductions in the nutritional value of vegetables. "We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content." TFD (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest following the citations through, the first one states that there is insufficient evidence that there is nutritional differences. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

True, they say that, Wolfie. But they also say that it is likely not to be caused by how you grow, but by what you grow. Ergo, this source is useless for any healthclaim. The Banner _talk 11:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be assuming that there is something we should be saying about health claims. If the sources (and the MEDRS ones specifically) say not enough evidence, then that's what we should say. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for an RfC question

It looks loud and clear that all parties are entrenching them. So, unlikely this is goning to be solved by discussion alone. I have suggested a RfC earlier, so here it is again.

The suggested question is: Is it necessary to apply strict sourcing according to Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) to the article Organic food? The Banner _talk 14:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion of how we should phrase the RFC so that it is within Misplaced Pages guidelines. However the wording proposed is problematic as it is not specific enough: The issue isn't that there is concern that WP:MEDRS must be applied to the whole article, but specifically to biomedical claims made within the article. Zad68 14:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

adding: It would be very helpful to provide a list of specific statements being made by the article, or being proposed for the article, plus the exact non-WP:MEDRS source proposed for use for each statement. Zad68 14:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Partly, just partly, I agree with you. The new suggestion is ''Is it necessary to apply strict sourcing according to Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) to the section about health and safety section of the article Organic food or are sources acoording to Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources enough?

I do not agree with your proposal to add a lot of clutter to the question. A short explanation pointing to the prior discussions will be enough. Cherry picking statements will distract from the question at hand and can easily distort the discussion. But the explanation would not be part of the question, just a reading advice. The Banner _talk 14:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you then agreeing without qualification that WP:MEDRS applies to all biomedical claims made in all other sections of the article besides the Health and safety section?

We really need to provide at least like 2 or 3 examples of exact article content + sources for this RFC to be productive. Can't we do it in a very simple, clean way? Without specified sources + content, there will be no clear consensus for any action at the article, and that's the whole point of the RFC, isn't it? Zad68 15:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Summerized: no, no. At the moment, non-MEDRS sources are blocked out of the article. Then adding MEDRS sources into the question makes the question immediately biased towards MEDRS. So, in my opinion, it is not possible because we need a neutral question. The Banner _talk 15:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's my proposed RFC question:

Should all biomedical content in this article be required to have sourcing that complies with WP:MEDRS? Specifically, should WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing be required for such article content as:

• "There is an association between consumption of pesticide residues from conventionally grown food and cancer risk."
• "Cancer benchmark levels for several toxic substances have been found to be exceeded in preschool children, and consumption of organic foods is recommended as one strategy for reducing risk."

Thoughts? Zad68 15:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Plain biased towards MEDRS, sorry. The Banner _talk 17:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If we can't even agree on how to phrase the RFC, how about going to dispute resolution then? Zad68 17:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You can try. But I think I am going to launch the RfC as in my original suggestion. Take it or leave it. The Banner _talk 21:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

DR will not work if you will not agree to do it. You can post your RFC as stated, of course, but surely I and others will be active in the RFC discussion bringing up exactly these points. We have to agree together on a path to consensus. Zad68 21:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, you say that you are willing to sabotage the RfC to have it your way? You are not even trying to compromize? The Banner _talk 22:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Not trying to compromise"?? I have already agreed that not every claim in the article needs WP:MEDRS, just the biomedical ones, and you rejected that as insufficient. I suggested we take it to Dispute Resolution, an idea that Montanabw was willing to work with, but you rejected it. I agreed to your counter-proposal to start an RFC, pointed out difficulties with how your RFC propsal was worded and suggested that it include both specific proposed content and sources, and you rejected that. I then met you halfway regarding my suggestion that the RFC have both wording and sources, and agreed to have the RFC provide only proposed new article wording (no sources), you rejected that. I then suggested DR again, and you rejected that, saying that you intend to start your own RFC your way with your own wording, "Take it or leave it."

I think it would be very hard for an outside observer to our exchange here to come to the conclusion that I'm the one unwilling to compromise. I could be a WP:DICK right now and start my own RFC here using my wording, but I'm not going to do that because it would be uncollaborative. I am genuinely in good faith trying to work with you to find agreement on at least a path we can take that will be productive and lead to consensus so that we all do not revert back to the same edit-warring that was happening.

The RFC as you are suggesting it above will not be productive because it is not specific enough. Try this thought exercise: Let's say you start the RFC and you have 100% Support !votes. For what exact article change can you then say there is support? None. With your wording, the RFC would be an unproductive use of editors' time. Pointing this out in an RFC with wording as you have suggested would not be "sabotage."Zad68 13:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The effect will be that also non-MEDRS sources can be used to support health and nutrition claims, making it possible to create a far more balanced article than the present one. The Banner _talk 14:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying then that if the RFC as you've stated it were to pass, you would be able to have the article state, "Organic food cures cancer." cited to a single peer-reviewed, PUBMED-indexed 1963 study done on rats? Zad68 15:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope you know you are talking plain nonsense now? The Banner _talk 18:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The point being: Instead of reaching for the stars here, and attempting to see if there is consensus support from the community for the most extraordinary statement supported by the weakest source (which is indeed included in the scope of the very broad RFC statement you are proposing), why not put forward a specific statement, and a specific source? You would have a much greater chance of having your RFC succeed if it has a smaller scope.

However, I feel like my good-faith efforts here are not being taken seriously. The article is protected for another week, do what you need to do, let's see how far it gets. Zad68 18:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have never said that I want to outlaw MEDRS-sources. The RfC as suggested, makes it possible to add non-MEDRS sources. But it still should be reliable sources. Sourcing a statement with a quote of the website www.moongrow.ie (really exists) is plain nonsense. But an article, published by the Agricultural Department of the University of Whoknowswhere in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, should be allowed as source. The Banner _talk 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

OK an article published by a researcher at a university in a peer-reviewed scientific journal... good I'm with you so far, but we need to go all the way there... what kind of article? Results of a primary research study, or a review article? Supporting what kind of article content, a statement about the effect of a certain kind of farming method on crop yields, or a statement that food grown in a certain way has this-or-that nutritional or health consequences in humans? (And I hate to even point it out, but are you aware of WP:SCIRS?) Zad68 18:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware of the very existence of WP:SCIRS. I will take a closer look at it later. I just took a glimps on it, good enough to see Respect primary sources. A primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I will come back on this tomorrow. The Banner _talk 18:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not skip past "Respect secondary sources" (relevant quote, "scientific information in Misplaced Pages articles should be based on published, reliable secondary sources") and "Use up-to-date evidence". Have a good one... Zad68 18:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I only took a quick look. Yes, WP:SCIRS seems to be a step into the right direction. Unfortunately, I don't see anything about agriculture. So, I have asked there. No answer yet. The Banner _talk 18:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

At best, my friend, you can say something about the risk of developing cancer, positive or negative. I would be very surprised when such an article even existed. I would be evenly surprised when there was a study that plain told that Agent Orange and RoundUp are the single source of diseases. But health is not alone about getting severe diseases. I can very well imagine (I did not do any research at this moment) that there will be sources out there that say that organically grown vegetables have more substances that are beneficial to the natural resistance against diseases compared with chemically grown vegetables. The Banner _talk 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for an RfC question - break 1

I think the issue is that the article does not appear to be balanced and we should address that rather than getting distracted by details. The lead for example says that organic food is equivalent to conventionally produced food in terms of safety, nutrition and taste, which is misleading, and ignores other reasons people buy organic food. TFD (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree the article has other, serious problems... just trying to work through one at a time... Zad68 13:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Misleading in what way? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

To use an example, an organic chicken from Wholefoods tastes better than an ordinary chicken from a large grocery store chain and probably has better nutrition. However a chicken of the same breed as the organic chicken raised in a similar manner will be indistinguishable from an organic one, except perhaps for trace amounts of chemicals well below unsafe levels. And farmers who raise superior meats are increasingly obtaining organic certification. Saying that there is no difference in taste between organic and non-organic is only telling part of the story. TFD (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed. You appear to be deciding the way things are beforehand without any sources (OR). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't need a citation for every hiccup on the talkpage, Wolfie. And to put your opinion into perspective: it was a good idea of you to state that you are part of WikiProject Rational Skepticism. As organic food is clearly not mainstream science, it is clear that we can never ever convince you. And as such, I will not bother to even try... The Banner _talk 20:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Drop the bad faith charactertizations. Wikiproject rational skepticism is just a project that covers a specific subset of articles. I'm also a member of wikiproject astrology. What do you infer from that? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm also a member of WikiProject Ottoman Empire; but I try not to show any bias towards the farming methods used in 18th century Anatolia.

Deciding that the content is "biased" and then engineering a change in sourcing rules in order to support your preferred content is back-to-front. (Although, admittedly, it's been a problem on other articles covered by Wikiproject rational skepticism, so IRWolfie knows the drill). Sources should determine what we say about the topic; not the other way round. bobrayner (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that all sourcing must pass WP:RS. But I soubt if WP:MEDRS is the right measure to judge the sourcing for an articlle about organic food. Zad68 suggested a look at WP:SCIRS, and that seems to be better (although not perfect). Main problem at the moment, but I did file a request for clarification, is that is says nothing about agriculture, only biology. I hope to get an answer soon, so we can go on. The Banner _talk 23:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not ok for the claims about cancer. That still needs MEDRS. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The Banner, sorry, I am afraid you have misinterpreted my mention of WP:SCIRS. I did not at all mean that WP:SCIRS is a Misplaced Pages guideline that could be used an alternative to WP:MEDRS for sourcing for for biomedical claims. WP:MEDRS is the Misplaced Pages guideline that covers the sourcing for biomedical claims in all Misplaced Pages articles, including this one. I mentioned WP:SCIRS in reference to sourcing guidelines for scientific but non-medical claims. For example, any claim in this article regarding the health effects of organic vs. conventional food must have WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, but non-medical scientific claims, such as claims regarding the efficiency of organic vs. conventional farming, must be WP:SCIRS-compliant. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused you by not being clear. Zad68 00:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, I can only access one of the two sources for the claim that there is no significant difference in taste between organic and conventionally grown food, Organic Production and Food Quality. It actually says that organic chicken does taste different from conventional chicken and is higher in healthy fatty acids and other nutrients (pp. 147-149). However, the source also mentions an experiment by Zhao et al. (2007), where vegetable produce was grown organically and conventionally on side by side plots, and a panel of 100 consumers was unable to distinguish the taste (pp. 51-52). But as explained in "Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999", there were "changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content". There is no reason to assume that organic farmers would use the varieties developed for conventional farming, especially since traditional varieties have more nutrition. Sorry that I assumed that the chicken from Whole Foods tasted better, I thought it was common knowledge. But the success of KFC may mean I am in a minority. TFD (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what way you are reading that book because the conclusions seem to suggest the opposite (taste differences with vegetables and fruits, not chicken). The book has a section called "Conclusions", pg 259, where it says: "Organic and conventional foods are fairly similar in terms of their nutrional quality and freedom from harmful chemical residues". On taste, it includes a quote from an organic group: "Most studies that have compared taste and organoleptic quality of organic and conventional foods report no consistent or significant differences between organic and conventional produce. However among the well-designed studies with respect to fruits and vegetables that have found difference, the vast majority favour organic food." I don't have access to the rest of that section, so I can't see what he concludes. What is the relevant of mentioned the "Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999", it appears to be your own original research that this has any impact or relevance to taste. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, all the references supporting the statements that organic food is no different in terms of taste, safety and nutrition either lack any page references or are sourced to wide page references. In the case of taste, for example, there is a reference to Organic Production and Food Quality, but not which page of that book supports the statement. Could you please add the page references so that we can move on. TFD (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

OR refers to claims added to articles, there is no injunction against discussing what claims are made by sources and where claims are not clear we should search for clearer ones. The source clearly says that organically raised animal products taste different and have more nutrition than conventionally raised ones. Therefore the statement that there is no difference between organically and conventionally raised food is wrong. The source you could not find about fruit and vegetables is on pp. 51-52 as I clearly stated, and can be found by clicking here. That claim appears to be that the same varieties of fruit and vegetables are indistinguishable regardless of the growing process. Whether or not it is realistic to assume that organic farmers grow the same varieties as conventional farmers however is not something that we should assume without evidence and it would be helpful to find a comparison between what conventional and organic farmers actually grow. It is a fact that conventionally grown produce today is less nutritious than food grown in the past. Whether or not organic farming has corrected this is something that should be included in the article. But of course we need sources. TFD (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You said, "It actually says that organic chicken does taste different from conventional chicken and is higher in healthy fatty acids and other nutrients", the text I showed from the reference does not support that; please include a quote to that effect from the source so that I can see (I do not have access to the page you mentioned). The text on page 51 does not support there being any major difference in taste; rather that any difference is due to freshness of any particular produce, whether or not its organic (the text I pasted earlier was a quote from an organics group, not the authors of the book as I noted). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Try this link to pp. 147- On p. 147, it says "Differences in meat quality have nevertheless been reported." It then describes a number of studies to support this finding then concludes on p. 150, "As with other classes of farm stock, the trend in organic chicken production is to use heritage breeds rather than fast-growin hybrids and to grow them to higher weights. The research and consumer findings suggest that the result is a slightly tougher meat but with an enhanced flavor that is preferred by some consumers." If you cannot access this section, other sections on meats reach similar conclusions. Also, you say "the text on page 51 does not support there being any major difference in taste ." I actually said "the same varieties of fruit and vegetables are indistinguishable regardless of the growing process". I question though whether the typical organic farmer would grow the same varieties as conventional farmers and if there are any studies comparing what is actually grown. TFD (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It still means that the lead is an accurate broad summary; all things being equal, interchanging organic with non-organic does not noticeably change the taste. If the reason, specific to chicken, is due to different breeds that organic/free range farmers may use then that could be mentioned in the taste section with the reference. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

We are going nowhere now...

By now the discussion is absolutely going nowhere. So let us try another approach.

I suggest to split up and reorganize the chapter "Health and Safety" to the following:

1 Food safety

1.1 Proven facts

1.1.1 Safety for producers

1.1.2 Safety for consumers

1.2 Claims and perceptions

2 Positive effects on health?

2.1 Medical view

2.2 Agricultural view

2.3 Claims and perceptions

3 Taste

WP:MEDRS should cover 2.1; WP:SCIRS should cover 1.1 and 2.2; WP:RS should cover 1.2, 2.3 and 3. The Banner _talk 15:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide specific proposed article content and sources for 2.2 that would be a representative example of an "Agricultural view" health claim with WP:SCIRS-compliant but not WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Zad68 16:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Just as an example: . We have to work this out later, as this is just a line of thinking. The Banner _talk 17:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not a health claim but a claim about nutritional content. I think agricultural science can be accepted for that type of claim, so long as we do not infer that there are any health benefits. The same goes for levels of toxins. TFD (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's a health claim. It's a claim that the food is healthier or safer. The suggestion that you can claims something is more nutritious or safer but is not a health claim is preposterous. Yobol (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to add the claim that regular food causes cancer or contains poison you require MEDRS sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I object to this suggestion. The notion that there is a "medical" view and a "agricultural" view about the nutritional effects of food makes no sense - agriculturual views of agriculture are notable, not their view on medical issues. Changing heading from neutral wording such as "nutritional value" to "positive effects on health?" and "proven facts" is a non-starter. Any significant discussion about safety for growers of organic food belongs in Organic farming, not here. Any discussion about perceptions needs to be integrated into specific sections (perhaps a separate paragraph in that section) without any hint of implication that those views hold any weight as far as validity is concerned. Yobol (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The edit says, " point at the significant higher levels of secondary metabolites and vitamin C. According to the scientists, they found a 12% higher level of secondary metabolites in organically grown vegetable-samples compared with non-organically grown vegetable-samples." Nothing about health or safety and certainly agricultural scientists are competent to analyse the chemical content of agricultural products. It may be though that there are other reasons why the study should not be included. TFD (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's not about safety or health then it does not belong in sections called "nutritional value" and "safety", then. The relevance of chemical contents is largely due to their nutritional value and safety (otherewise we wouldn't be talking vitamin content, we would be talking other things). The cited text was used and phrased specifically to rebut discussion about how organic food are not more nutritious; if we aren't discussing nutrition or safety, we shouldn't be using that text to rebut discussion of it, either. It was clearly the intent of the editor to imply that organic food was more nutritious, despite what WP:MEDRS compliant sources say.Yobol (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Before we start fighting over it, could splitting up the chapter be a useful thing to resolve the problems of this article and the existing disagreements among editors? We can talk about the actual content of the sections later, my suggestion is purely to find a way to make progress in solving the issue at hand. The Banner _talk 18:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we start with one subject, such as your claim that MEDRS doesn't apply to this page, and move on from there once it is resolved. Adding more issues when previous ones are not resolved is not helpful. Yobol (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear to me that some of you rather die than accept other sources. My name is The Banner, not Don Quixote. With the current sourcing-issues of the chapter "Health and Safety", it is clear that we can discuss another 25 years and reach nothing...

But should everything present in that chapter be covered by WP:MEDRS? I don't think so. Should health claims always be covered by MEDRS? In my opinion, only when there are clear claims on health issues (i.e. chemical farming causes diseases, organic farming not and that type of claims). Claims that organic food contains more healthy substances, could quite well be covered by scientific reliable sources (WP:SCIRS), no need to apply MEDRS on that. Any claims and perceptions, not backed up by scientific or medical evidence, can go to a seperate section regulated by WP:RS. "Taste" should also be regulated by WP:RS, as taste is rather personal and hard to quantify. The Banner _talk 19:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC) BTW: the disappeared nutrition falls in my opinion under 2.2.

You specifically added text about cancer risks, you then denied you did this. Do you now accept that this requires MEDRS sources? If health claims aren't backed up by MEDRS, why should we include them. Specifically when they appear to be selected to try and contradict MEDRS content. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not add that claim, I reverted a prior removal. So don't blame me. The Banner _talk 20:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You are responsible for the content you choose to add to articles, whether or not you do it by reverting another editor; you did add the claim, and the diffs show you adding the claim. Do you accept that MEDRS was required? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You are deliberately distorting this discussion. Please stop and try to be cooperative. hammering on a point that is not mine, will not work. The Banner _talk 22:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

All health claims, including discussion about nutrition and safety, need to be sourced to MEDRS, as all health claims should be. If we can't get past this particularly important point of contention, I see no reason to move on, as sourcing is the foundation on which everything else is built on. Nutritional content, with the implication that it organic food is healthier, is obviously a health claim, and attempts at wiki-lawyering around MEDRS is transparent here. To be clear, any discussion in sections that deal with nutrition or safety should be sourced to MEDRS. Attempting to get poorer sources accepted to push a POV should not be accepted. Yobol (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear that you use WP:MEDRS as a policy, while it is only a guideline. And on top of that page stand the following text: This page documents an English Misplaced Pages content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. May I ask your attention to the phrases "is best treated with common sense" and "occasional exceptions may apply". And for your information: you won't find the word "food" in the text. The Banner _talk 20:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a guideline, like just as WP:RS is a "guideline". The fact that it is a guideline means it is a generally accepted and has achieved consensus. It seems very common sense to me that health claims about foods are still health claims, and therefore still fall under WP:MEDRS. There is no "food" exception to MEDRS. You seem to be expending a lot of energy trying to get around WP:MEDRS rather than finding WP:MEDRS compliant source, which in an of itself speaks volumes. Yobol (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion may be a distraction. The Newcastle study was not acceptable because it is a an isolated study and we should use reviews to determine its degree of acceptance before including it. Presumably though there should be no conflict between the consensus of opinion between agricultural and medical scientists on the levels of vitamin C in fruits and vegetables. TFD (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Editors have claimed that MEDRS does not apply to articles about food (see above). Clearly that is incorrect. Until we get a consensus on what sources we should be using, there is no point to further discussions. Yobol (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

For reference, here is the disputed section: , which is about cancer risks. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop distorting the discussion! The Banner _talk 22:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that the sole reason you deleted reference to "Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment" is that it failed rs? It was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Environmental Health and appears on the website of the National Center for Biotechnology Information, part of the United States National Library of Medicine, a branch of the National Institutes of Health. Does that mean that environmental health articles are never rs for environmental health? TFD (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It is also a recent primary study that had not been reviewed by a secondary source, meaning it fails WP:MEDRS, WP:PSTS and WP:WEIGHT. Yobol (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know and we are going in circles. If it were published in a medical journal those same issues would apply. But IRWolfie's comment implies that the journal cannot be used as a source for claims about environmental health period. Do you agree with that? TFD (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that journal (agricultural journals who try to present health related materials, I do have a problem with). I do have problems with the article for the above reasons, as it still fails MEDRS (which is the point I think IRWolfie- was making - The Banner was trying to add a source that failed MEDRS). Yobol (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you have a problem with agricultural peer-reviewed journals making health claims (in the wide sense you like to see)? The Banner _talk 00:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

For the fiftieth time, agricultural journals are reliable for agricultural information (farming techniques, etc). Medical journals are reliable for medical information (nutritional information). Agricultural journals are no more reliable for medical information than medical journals are how to farm (that is to say, not really reliable). Yobol (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

So, without looking at content and quality, you disqualify them just based on their field of work. The Banner _talk 00:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If material in an inappropriate source contradicts material from an appropriate source, I will dismiss the inappropriate source. If you are trying to add material saying that organic food is healthier, when the MEDRS sources say they are not, you cannot use an inferior source. Sorry. The problem here is that people are looking for material to back up their conclusion and trying to fit/wikilawyer in those sources any which way they can, rather than do the appropriate thing, which is gather the appropriate sources and summarize them in the article. Yobol (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No, in fact you are wikilawyer a whole range of quality sources out because it does not fit in your ideas. You are dismmissing a range of sources of institutions specializing in food and how to produce that, about what is in the products that they research. That is rather weird! It is in fact saying research by Roche Diagnostics is not qualified to feature in article Vitamin C. The Banner _talk 01:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And we're back to repeating ourselves over and over. So tiresome. I suggest we move along in the WP:DR process, as further discussion now appears to be headed towards WP:IDHT territory. Yobol (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your obstruction, wikilawering and refusal to look for a solution in this conflict are indeed tiresome. The Banner _talk 08:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Banner, are you now agreeing to participate in the WP:DR process? If so, that would be fantastic, and let's get started. Zad68 14:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if it is of any use, seeing the stubborn resistance of Wolfie and Yobol and their total lack of cooperation to solve this by discussion. The Banner _talk 14:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That is sad, but it is your choice. Everyone here agrees this conversation on this Talk page is not going to end up in unanimous agreement, so further discussion here does not seem productive either. At this time, there is no consensus for your proposed changes at the article. Perhaps it's time for all of us to go work on something else. Cheers... Zad68 15:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ho, wait. I sincerely doubt if it will yield any result. I am not unwilling to participate! The Banner _talk 18:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Great! I have opened a dispute Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case opened for our discussion at Organic Food. The direct link to the WP:DRN discussion is: Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Organic_food. Appreciate your participation! Thanks... Zad68 19:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Expect slow responses due to real life commitments. The Banner _talk 19:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, although please do try to make some kind of comment, no matter how small, to the DR discussion every day. If there isn't visible ongoing participation, the DR folks will close it as 'stale.' Zad68 19:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose there was no choice. But oh goody, now we will be debating this for another six months. Sigh... Montanabw 19:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Mediation closed

• DR closed, with recommendation to use an RfC - which typically are a month. Before an RfC is opened it would be healthy to discuss proposals for focus, method, and wording. One comment though, until the 20th century all food was organic food, so it is in fact organic food that is "regular food", not the plastic that is sold as food in grocery stores today. FYI, looking over the article, there is a ton of work needed to bring it back up to GA status. Delphi234 (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for sharing your opinion, although what you're saying would be more appropriate at a forum for discussing History of organic farming rather than here. The scope of this article is food from producers recognized as 'organic' by meeting the appropriate standards of the several governments that establish such. I guess it's time to draft an RFC. Zad68 21:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The challenged chapter contains in fact three main subjects: consumer safety, nutritional value and taste. Do they all need MEDRS? I can imagine that a claim by Wolfie that organicically produced food causes cancer surely needs WP:MEDRS. But nutritional value or taste are both not health claims, so should not be covered by MEDRS. Quality sources (at least WP:RS) should be enough for those. The Banner _talk 21:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

How is nutrition not health a health claim? AIRcorn (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Nutrition and levels of toxins are chemical claims about foods. Whether or not it is advisable to consume or avoid a food based on these levels is medical advice. For example since, 25 ml of 40% alcohol vodka contains 56 calories, 20 to 40 servings will meet all your daily calorie requirements. 20 to 40 servings taken at one sitting may be fatal, but occassional light usage is not. It does not become medical advice unless the effects are mentioned. In this case the calory and alcohol content provides no advice on whether or how to consume vodka. TFD (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

IN other words, will RS or SCIRS apply some claims, and can we say something like this: "pesticide residues have been found on conventionally-raised foods. (SCIRS source)"? And then, a statement with no medical claims such as "organic food advocates are concerned about pesticide residues on food (RS source)"? Finally, can we say, "They are concerned (RS to show their position) because some studies (MEDRS source) have linked pesticide exposure to cancer (MEDRS source)?" Montanabw 23:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem too bad as long as it is expressed as a viewpoint and ties into the second paragraph of "Consumer safety". AIRcorn (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Telling people what is in a vegetable is not a health claim, in my opinion. That is why it is called "nutritional value". Or do you think that "Carrots contain Carotene" is a health claim? The Banner _talk 23:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Carrots contain carotene needs a SCIRS source, while saying carrots help prevent cognitive decline due to high levels of carotene would require a MEDRS one. I am not sure about going the Carrots contain carotene (SCIRS) and carotene prevents cognitive decline (MEDRS), therefore carrots prevent cognitive decline route (normal RS source). This seems somewhat analogous to the pesticide/organic situation. AIRcorn (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to unprotect the article for the time being. Please be aware that edit warring is a blockable offense. Please do not make any potentially controversial changes to the article without establishing a consensus first. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 22:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I want to remind everyone what MEDRS says, right at the top of the page (my emphasis added): "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply...." So henceforth, let's also make our comments refer back to whatever section of MEDRS we are invoking, as to simply say "MEDRS" is a nice long page with many caveats and exceptions. Montanabw 23:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Like everything else on Misplaced Pages, common sense always applies, and the proposal that something deserves to be one of the "occasional exceptions" requires consensus support. If there's a proposal that something should be an exception, we'll discuss it and see if there's consensus support for it. Zad68 03:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone with acces to

...this article? Could it be useful for the section about taste? The Banner _talk 01:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Full text is right here: link but it's a letter to the editor and can't be used for anything other than the writers' opinions. Zad68 01:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a pity. It looked interesting. The Banner _talk 01:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks this is in fact the article I am looking for. The Banner _talk 01:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't dig into it too deeply, but that looks like an interesting primary source study. On Misplaced Pages we are looking for secondary sources. It actually looks like an earlier version of that study (Peck's Masters thesis) was used by Smith-Spanger et al. in "Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: a systematic review." Can you find another secondary source that uses it? Zad68 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, secodary sources are preferred, not mandatory. The Banner _talk 12:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The policy at WP:PSTS says:

Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.

Both WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS have large sections titled "Respect secondary sources" that explains why passing over secondary sources and hand-choosing individual primary results will lead to bad articles. Because there are high-quality secondary sources that cover these topics and in fact reference the individual primary sources you are talking about, there is no reason to use the individual primary sources here. Zad68 15:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to explain that I had a short list of examples in mind... The Banner _talk 19:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Most peer-reviewed articles ARE primary sources if you want to be really strict about it. Seems to me we solve the problem by explaining the context; it is not SYNTH to say: "X studies in (year) and (year) have concluded Y and Z; however no meta-analysis of these studies has been conducted to date and studies Z and A reached the opposite conclusion; thus a consensus within the scientific community has yet to be reached."

It's not a matter of 'being strict about it,' all primary research journal articles are, by definition, WP:PRIMARY. Any journal article where somebody runs an experiment him/herself, collects data, and reports the findings is primary research. What we want in Misplaced Pages articles are the review articles and systematic reviews that pull the data from the primary research article results and summarize and analyze them, and provide context and evidence confidence evaluations. The review articles and systematic reviews are the secondary sources we need to be using. Zad68 20:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Check this out: TRIP database... Zad68 20:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me we solve the problem by explaining the context; primary sources are appropriate for their findings; it is not SYNTH to say: "X studies in (year) and (year) have concluded Y and Z; however no meta-analysis of these studies has been conducted to date and studies Z and A reached the opposite conclusion; thus a consensus within the scientific community has yet to be reached." Zad, let's take a totally unrelated example of, say, researchers finding the DNA code for the genes that cause a rare disease. Is it OK to say "researchers have located gene X? Or can we not say that because it's a primary source and some other researchers have yet to say "we reviewed the study and the guys who found gene X are right?" Montanabw 20:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be covered until it's covered in secondary sources. We shouldn't be adding our interpretations of primary research or its significance. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Montana, it doesn't solve the problem. The problem is failing to depend on independent expert reliable sources to do the selecting and evaluating of the primary sources for us by having us hand-picking certain primary studies to include, and excluding others. The solution is to use the secondary sources. Zad68 04:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Article improvements - non-controversial?

• Proposal one: Anyone object if we give all editors until a couple days after Xmas (or maybe a week) to fix or find new cites for all sources tagged "dead link" and if not fixed by then, we toss all material, whatever it says, that has a "dead link" source on it?? Montanabw 20:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Only when you add dodgy sources like this one to the kicklist: It's Official: Organic Really is BetterOnly WP:MEDRS allowed? This looks like a major blindspot (or double standard) The Banner _talk 21:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Quoting a posting on the website of the alternative medicine practitioner Joseph Mercola, that refers to an unnamed report mentioned in a newspaper article that is no longer available is unhelpful, since it does not meet rs for any articles. TFD (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Dead links should not be removed merely because they are dead. See WP:LINKROT. Yobol (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

So fix it. Not to be rude, but WP:LINKROT is only a how-to page, not a guideline or policy and also says nothing about removing deadlinks. So fix the dead links or see them kicked. The Banner _talk 08:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed what I can. It's a how to guide describing practice on Misplaced Pages. You don't get to ignore Misplaced Pages's practices just because you don't like them. If you don't like the page, get a consensus to change it, but you don't get to ignore it. See also WP:DEADREF. Yobol (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It is just a manual, nothing to do with policy or guideline. You can throw in as many pagelinks as you want, as long as you refuse to take a sensible approach we will keep clashing. To avoid a further editwar over your POV-pushing, I have requested page protection again. The Banner _talk 12:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wolfie?

Could you please stop adding nonsense to the text? I would say that a conclusion The evidence does not suggest marked health benefits from consuming organic versus conventional foods, although organic produce may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and organic chicken and pork may reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. (, p. 11, left column, last paragraphis) is contrary to the statement in the text Reviews of the available body of scientific literature have not found that organic food is any safer or healthier than conventional foods. What you do is plain WP:SYNTH. The Banner _talk 18:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article for 10 days, which should give you a break over the Christmas period. How about you set up that RfC and then agree not to edit the article or the talk page for a week or so? — Mr. Stradivarius 17:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Another attempt for the RfC

Progress is by now totally zero, so let us try again. In basic I think we will create a lot of hassle and drama when we try to solve everything with one single RfC. As I have learned years ago, big problems do not exist, they are always clusters of small(er) problems. Without bothering about the exact formulation now, I think the following approach might be useful:

Step 1: General clean up and neutralisation of the whole article except the present chapter "Health and Safety"

Step 2: A RfC about the question "Does taste need WP:MEDRS sources or can it moved out of the chapter?"

Step 3: A RfC about the question "Does nutritional value need WP:MEDRS sources or can it moved out of the chapter?"

Step 4: A discussion about the split up of "Consumer safety" in more sections that can be dealed with separately. I think (no suggestions, just a line of thinking) of sections like "Perceived health effects", "Chemical residues", "Health and safety for growers and producers" and so on.

Step 5: A RfC about the question "The guideline WP:MEDRS allows exceptions on the general rule. Should Organic food avail of such an exception and allow non-MEDRS sources beside MEDRS-compliant sources?"

There is no ultimate need to do every step, every step taken is progress.

Peace on earth and let me hear what you think. The Banner _talk 12:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, I think that the MEDRS guideline discussion may be a diversion. I have not seen anything that should be in the article that the guideline disallows. Whatever topic we edit about, we should not use old studies that have received no attention or newspaper reports about new studies that have not yet received any recognition. And certainly we cannot put in our own opinions. There is also nothing to stop us from reporting claims made by supporters of organic farming provided they have received notice and we are able to report the degree of acceptance of those claims. And no taste is not a MEDRS issue, but we still need reliable sources that are not just the opinions of isolated writers. TFD (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Why should you start searching for alternative sources knowing that Yobol and Wolfie will remove it as soon as possible when it does not meet their own personal standards? They use MEDRS as a policy, while it is only a guideline. They demand secondary sources, while these are only preferred. The latest incident was when Yobol was cherrypicking part of a conclusion to make it more negative than it in fact was. I really try to maintain good faith about them, but they make it seriously tough! The Banner _talk 14:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that we have a behavioral problem here with POV-pushing on the part of Wolfie and Yobol that no longer will AGF on Banner's perfectly reasonable edits. The "my way or the highway" attitude needs to go. I think the only way an RfC has any possibility of resolving anything is to present a clear alternative. So, to that end, Banner: My suggestion is that you create a sandbox off your talk page, feel free to send the link if you wish, and then insert the relevant text (or even the entire article) into it, then at your leisure, edit as you see fit, (I will also help, as can others you invite; it's YOUR sandbox) adding high quality sources and doing the cleanup work that is needed. Then we can basically present option A or option B to the RfC, allowing that both versions may yet be work. No sense banging our heads against the wall here. Montanabw 19:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good way forward; however, for someone like myself who is new to this discussion, I would like to be briefed on the passages in dispute, perhaps with a list of points followed by diffs. The Banner's focus on MEDRS is the wrong way to go. Whenever possible, we should demand the best sources available. On the other hand, there are serious conflicts of interest at work, and there is a close relationship between the companies responsible for conventional agriculture and the medical industry, sometimes resulting in propaganda efforts like this—a study by a team of clinicians outside their fields of expertise, allegedly funded by undisclosed agribusiness money from Cargill, cherry picked results, produced a straw man, and then proceeded to knock it down. This is a classic example of the manufactured uncertainty PR tactic, and it is not surprising that one of the key players from the now debunked uncertainty previously created by the tobacco companies, Ingram Olkin, was on Stanford's team. No surprise here, folks. Science is not immune from manipulation, but our judicious use of sources will in practice, eliminate bias and spin. On this point, MEDRS cannot eliminate reliably sourced criticism or counterarguments within their field of expertise. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It is nice to see this Huffington-article refer to Kirstin Brandt and her report. Interesting, when I added this report it was shot down by the duo as a non-MEDRS source so unusable... The Banner _talk 23:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

When you read the talkpage, you can see that it are Yobol and Wolfie who regard MEDRS as the Holy Grail and follow it with complete tunnelvision. The Banner _talk 22:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Both of those lines of inquiry are unproductive. Let us focus only on contributions. What is the primary point of contention at this time? Please be specific and brief in your reply. I am only interested in solving problems not talking endlessly about the problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that the MEDRS guideline presents the restrictions that Viriditas believes. The Huffington Post article says that the press release for the Stanford study says, "Not included in the publicly-available abstract or press release was the fact that pesticide residues were found in 7 percent of organics and 38 percent of conventional foods." Since MEDRS says we should use the study not the press release, then that should not present a problem. Also, the article says that another review said that organic food had higher levels of omega-3. Again, MEDRS does not prevent us from reporting this other study. All MEDRS prevents us from doing is saying that the higher level of pesticide residue is unhealthy and the the higher level of omega-3 is healthy, because the scientific consensus does not support that claim. Also while policy does allow the use of primary sources, MEDRS does not pose any restrictions beyond what the policy does. In order to use primary sources for opinions, we need to establish in secondary sources that the opinions are significant.

As I explained above, Organic Production and Food Quality: A Down to Earth Analysis says that organic and conventionally raised meat differ in quality, nutrition and toxins. Yet it is used in the article to support the opposite claim. We also ignore that the book said organic food is fresher. An obvious problem with the tests is that it assumes organic farmers raise the same lower nutrition breeds of fruits and vegetables that were developed for intensive farming. While we cannot comment on that, nothing prevents us from presenting sources discussing whether the breeds actually grown by organic farmers are more or less nutritious.

I question too that we should be suspicious of reports that are industry funded. Industry often funds reports published outside the academic mainstream, for example with tobacco and global warming. But those reports do not meet MEDRS. But industry often funds studies that meet the standards of academic research.

TFD (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Meta analyses that controvert this article

The following meta analysis shows that the micronutrient content was more frequently reported to be higher for organic vegetables than conventional vegetables: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21929333

Interesting and seems great to use under MEDRS. However (and it is a big however) the article is behind a firewall -- not clear if the level of micronutrients in food from conventional ag is less than what we need, and unclear if the higher levels in organic food matter - what is the actual health impact here? (I really don't know) This is exactly where the rubber hits the road when it comes to describing compositional differences versus making actual health claims. Seems perfect for compositional differences (just chemistry) - not at all clear what this means for health.Jytdog (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a RS is behind a pay wall, it is still a RS. It can be requested for review by other editors if necessary. All of the sources in this article could be behind pay walls, it wouldn't matter. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi V: agreed on the paywall thing. That was an aside, literally, i meant "it is unfortunate" - I was not trying to rule it out with that remark. You didn't address the more important point, which is, that the health impact is not clear.Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in that point. I'm interested in addressing how we use sources at a meta level. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to see the report and compare it with the sources already used to see if more recent research has superseded it. The abstract says that 56% of the time organic food had higher levels of micronutrients, on average 5%, and that further research is required to determine the health effects. TFD (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Gathering up the discussion of this as a source, can we agree on 3 conclusions: 1) it is an acceptable source, 2) to support claims about the chemical composition of organic food; and 3) it does not speak to health benefit of organic food.  ? Additional note -- the question of reliable source really has 2 parts - 1) is the source reliable; and 2) does it support the statement you want to make? I have been dealing with 2 and as well as 1. Sorry if that is getting ahead of the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The following meta analysis noted that chronic exposure to organochlorine pesticide compounds may contribute to type 2 diabetes and thyroid diseases: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20677670

This is a secondary source, good under MEDRS. Too bad it is in Italian. Seems that key points of this article are aimed not at residues left on food, which one might eat, but rather, at health effects of organochlorines (not all pesticides) on ag workers. If there is a section in this article on benefits/harms of organic farming vs Big Ag farmnig on farm workers, this could be useful. A quick note - one of the reasons why glyphosphate has been so widely adopted is that it is buckets (unscientific measure I know) less toxic than organochlorines.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The language of a RS has no bearing on its status as a RS. All of the sources in this article could be written in Chinese, it wouldn't matter. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that is true, about the language. Really, I am not sure what wiki policy is on that. Will look. But again you didn't address the key point, which is that this article if about farming, not food. If there is a section on farming, great!Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the relevant policies is WP:NOENG, but I think you will find common sense just as helpful. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, how healthy can food be when the production method kills of the one who grow it? Earlier in this discussion I have already suggested to creat sections "Safety for consumers" and "Safety for growers". I will suggest that now again! The Banner _talk 23:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Gathering up the discussion of this as a source, can we agree on 3 conclusions: 1) it is an acceptable source but as per WP:NOENG, only if a) only the abstract is relied on, or b) the person who uses it provides an english translation of the relevant part (in a controverted article like this, I think English translation is essential, 2) to support claims about benefits to workers on organic farms compared to workers on BIgAg farms? (Banner your comment is rhetorically interesting but we cannot push a source farther than it goes) Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The following meta analysis showed that occupational exposure to pesticides increases the risk of Parkinson's disease: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22698719

Misrepresentation in that it overstates the results. Conclusion is: "The present study provides some support for the hypothesis that occupational exposure to pesticides increases the risk of PD." Again, this is relevant to farm workers, not eaters of food with residual pesticides. Also, article is behind a paywall... "pesticides" is an incredibly broad class that includes, for instance, pesticides used in organic farming. The abstract does not make it clear whether the studies that were meta-analyzed included pesticides used in organic farming. If they did, how is this article relevant to the organic food article? Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is entirely relevant. The occupational exposure of farm workers to pesticides is entirely on topic. How we eat our food and how we produce our food is inseparable. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is a section on farming, great! But you again miss the larger point that it is unclear from the abstract whether it includes pesticides used in organic farming.Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The study is not about pesticides used in organic farming. The study is about the health risks of pesticides to farm workers. It is relevant to the health and safety of farm workers, which would be covered under this topic. However, I would expect it to be covered more widely in other secondary sources, and not for Misplaced Pages editors to cherry pick as they may. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We are not close to consensus here. Viriditas -- what i was trying to say is that the source does not make clear what pesticides it is analyzing. Pesticides are used on organic farms. Pesticides are used on BIgAg farms. We do not know what pesticides the article discusses. For all we know, it is 100% about pesticides used on organic farms. So I don't know what kind of statement you would use support using it.Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A recent meta analysis of 19 studies where rats were given GMO corn and soy established the organ damaging effects of these alterations: http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

This study is by the Seralini lab and was widely discredited. Not mainstream science.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in reading about how it was discredited. In the future, provide links supporting your claims. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, there is a serious section in the genetically modified food controversies article that discusses Seralini's studies and the responses to them. The links are there.Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

First, it is interesting how that "serious section" you refer to makes use of non-English sources, which I hopes settles the above issue. Second, the study was not "discredited", and the government/industry review panels in question emphasized uncertainty and called for further inquiries. Your characterization of the issue appears to be biased. Viriditas (talk)

I agree with you, Viriditas. For problems with the reception of the Seralini study, the following provides insight (this is not a source appropriate for wikipedia, but is sufficiently documented): http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo-whitewash/5316294#_edn8

The underhanded politics mentioned in the above article are known to occur in this area - the following Guardian story based on a wikileaks leak shows the type of politics Monsanto, et al., resort to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-cropsPottinger's cats (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The most you can say of the report is that it said results were inconclusive, hence the authors called for further study. Tests on rats do not necessarily indicate how humans will react, so we would need a claim that in this case they did. And the fact that the report was dismissed by the scientific community means it is not useful to the article. (Globalresearch.ca is not a reliable source.) Also, it does not mention how this relates to organic food. TFD (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is that whenever Globalresearch.ca gets cited to support a claim, there is reliable source which directly contradicts that claim. Nonetheless, the fact that globalresearch.ca says things that other sources don't (IE. Global warming is a myth, HAARP is a weapon, the Gaddafi and Milošević and Assad regimes are peaceful victims of NATO aggression, 9/11 was an inside job, H1N1 is a government plot to kill billions of people, &c) guarantees that people will try to cite it in controversial areas. Surely we're not relying on globalresearch.ca as an independent arbiter on controversial science issues? Every time it gets taken to WP:RSN, it gets rejected.

The Séralini study was discredited. Meanwhile Séralini has refused to release raw data and pretty much anybody who points out flaws in the methodology is dismissed as having no "right" to review the paper. And then there's the conflict of interest problems. Putting any weight on Séralini's view would be a serious failure of NPOV. bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The article given, with sufficient documentation, deals with the source you gave to claim that the Séralini study was discredited, showing how conflicts of interest and other factors led to that decision. It directly deals with the issues you brought up. Globalresearch is not a mainstream source, however, many of its articles adequately controvert mainstream views. Many of its views on international politics are corroborated by the following from Gen. Wesley Clark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE

Regarding Global Warming, US Navy records shows that arctic ice volume has increased 25% from 2008-2010: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-25-since-may-2008/

Regarding other opinions, they defend their stance on 9/11 on their website, so I won't go into it. The opinion on weather warfare is commonly cited as a "fringe" idea, but it is discussed as a viable option by the former National Security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in "Between Two Ages", relevant excerpts of which are here: http://www.earthemperor.com/2008/11/18/between-two-ages-americas-role-in-the-technetronic-era-by-zbigniew-brzezinski/

It is also noted in military literature: http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

It is also noted in the following: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0%2F%2FEN

But the opinions of many writers are varying, and each article needs to be taken on a case by case basis. The article given about the Seralini study is totally relevant. The Guardian article cited below the article relevant to the Seralini study deals with Monsanto's actions and influence, and shows how it is rational to expect crony capitalism and undue influence in these cases.Pottinger's cats (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The following overview corroborates the Seralini study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20011136

So does this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835

So does this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21111655Pottinger's cats (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Finally, Genetically modified foods pose an immense environmental and health threat, because of horizontal gene transfer. Animal research published in 2003 in the journal of Environmental Biosafety Research showed that genetically modified lactic acid bacteria are capable of transferring recombinant genes sequences horizontally into a species of digestive tract bacteria that is found in humans: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15612415

Other animal research on orally ingested foreign DNA shows that it is not only capable of transferring to, and altering genetic information within the animal consuming it, but is also capable of affecting the genetics of the fetuses and newborn of pregnant mice who are fed it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9819049Pottinger's cats (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Folks, can we please stay on topic? Global warming is not relevant here. Nor is horizontal gene transfer. The topic is the Seralini article. I tried to make the point that it is not a reliable source -- it was discredited by all the major regulatory agencies. When I say "discredited" I mean that the alarm bells it wants to ring, saying that "GM food is bad" were found to be not credible. With respect to the desire for more knowledge, everybody wants that -- Seralini is not alone in that. It is also pretty unclear to me what kind of statement you would want to use this article to support, in an article about Organic Food. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a better defense of the Seralini study: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer, http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14217-scientists-response-to-critics-of-seralinis-studyPottinger's cats (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, this is not the famous long term two year study, but a meta-analysis of other studies. Again, see this: http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

Under "purpose", it states, "We reviewed 19 studies of mammals fed with commercialized genetically modified soybean and maize which represent, per trait and plant, more than 80% of all environmental genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivated on a large scale, after they were modified to tolerate or produce a pesticide. We have also obtained the raw data of 90-day-long rat tests following court actions or official requests. The data obtained include biochemical blood and urine parameters of mammals eating GMOs with numerous organ weights and histopathology findings."Pottinger's cats (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Also of relevance is the following UK Independent article on Monsanto banning GM foods from its staff canteen: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-food-banned-in-monsanto-canteen-737948.html

An out of date hoax (story dates from 1999; Monsanto has not been in the pharma business for years now). Disappointing lack of critical thought in trying to pass this off as a reliable source.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, a source documenting an event does not lose currency. What do you mean by "Monsanto has not been in the pharma business for years now"? Your misreading of our RS guideline and misstatement about Monsanto is problematic. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

They sold their pharma business back in the early 2000s. The article at the link is posted as though the date is 2012 but if you take two seconds and google for infomation the hoax becomes clear.

Not very interesting even if true. So a caterer contracted to one Monsanto location did not serve GMO food. TFD (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. A bit off topic for this article. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What does "they sold their pharma business back in 2000" mean in relation to the news article posted above? Could someone explain this for me? I am standing outside Montsanto right now and they are working hard on GM crops. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

They sold their drug business in 2002, so they no longer own the location that served non-GMO food. GMO is not a drug or pharmaceutical, it is a food product. TFD (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see that this point was part of Jytdog's currency argument. Nevertheless, an event doesn't lose currency, only study results do. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we agree that this source is outdated and irrelevant to an article about organic food? Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The following Reuters article on the safety of the Roundup Herbicide is also of relevance: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/us-monsanto-roundup-idUSTRE71N4XN20110224

Right, the "electron microscopic pathogen"... Not mainstream science.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but questions about the safety and efficacy of these herbicides has been addressed by mainstream science. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I am a bit speechless. This is like the "ionized water" thing.. crazy land.Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how you get that from the above report or from my comment. You are, however, parroting Monsanto's press release. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is true that nature is fighting back against all tricks Monsanto is throwing at it (and Monsanto will loose at the end) but it needs a better base than this article! The Banner _talk 23:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of Monsanto's press release. I have come across this Reuters story before and I have the same reaction now that I had when I first read it. Some poor sod cannot get his research published in a legitimate journal so he writes a letter to the USDA and apparently brought the story to the press too. The idea of an "electron microscopic pathogen" is just so ludicrous-sounding. If the guy ever publishes it in a legit journal, let's see how the scientific community reacts. Heck maybe he wins a Nobel prize. But no, findings reported in a letter to the USDA and given to the press is a) certainly not science that is discussed in a secondary source (e.g a scientific article) and is not even a legit primary source (a scientific journal) - this is pretty much WP:SELFPUBLISH. And again, unclear what kind of statement you would want to use this source to support in any case.Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Following up on this, I did some more reading and found this: http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/1358.dangerous-glyphosate.html which says: "In an open letter, the President of the American Phytopathological Society (APS) made it clear that in this case Huber was not representing APS, and criticised the fact that the findings relating to the new pathogen had not been published in a scientific journal. There was no verifiable evidence available to support the claim. Scientists at Purdue University, where Huber lectured until he retired, also refuted his theories. Although they shared his general observation that glyphosate can make plants more susceptible to individual pathogens, they said that this fact had been known for some time and was also true of other herbicides. Glyphosate has, they say, been used on a large scale for more than 30 years and there are no indications of any general increase in plant diseases or associated yield losses as claimed by Huber."

Also, the journal Archives of Toxicology published a study showing that Roundup is toxic to human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450 times lower than what is normally used: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331240Pottinger's cats (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a primary source, not a secondary source. Under MEDRS it can still be used but judiciously. As above key point of this article is aimed not at residues left on food, which we might eat, but rather, at health effects of roundup on ag workers who spray it. If there is a section in this article on benefits/harms of organic farming vs Big Ag farmnig on farm workers, this could be useful.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This study is totally relevant to consumer safety. Farmers are exposed to much more of it, and the following studies are relevant to their exposure and the health effects of it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14998747, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12148884, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18623080, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20818537, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15626647, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20012598, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19672767, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000283

This study also directly addresses your points: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21640371

The following environmental study is also of relevance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19697445Pottinger's cats (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, can we please stay on topic? Question here is the Koller VJ study in Arch Toxicol. 2012 May;86(5):805-13. called "Cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of glyphosate and Roundup in human-derived buccal epithelial cells." The article does not speak to pesticide residues left on food; only on worker safety. To tie this to food residues you would have to violate WP:OR, I think. It seems to me that it can be used, judiciously, to support a cautious farm worker safety statement. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You need a source linking roundup ready crops to organic food. My understanding is that these crops are limited to corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, sugarbeets, and alfalfa, and are mostly avoided through healthy eating choices. Individuals may choose to avoid products containing GMO crops without buying organic food. TFD (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

but Deuces, this article does not speak to food. It speaks to production of food - specifically, farm worker health. Farm workers on organic farms as well as BigAg farms are exposed to far higher concentrations of pesticide than consumers of the resulting food are. Jytdog (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Again you need a source that connects it to organic farming. Please read WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." TFD (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Deueces, if by "you" you are referring to me, you would be missing my point. I have been arguing that this article, directed to toxicity of roundup to farm workers (it was known to be toxic anyway.. not clear what this article brings to the table exactly), doesn't speak to residues on food and it cannot be used that way -- I agree that using it that way would be WP:SYN - that is what I have been saying. :) Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Extensive discussion of farm workers would seem to be more relevant in the Organic farming article, than here. Yobol (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a constructive way forward. However, for round-up ready we would need a source that makes an explicit connection to organic foods. For example it should both explain the dangers of round-up ready pesticides and contain a statement such as, "x % of conventionally raised fruit and vegetables use round-up ready pesticides, while organic farms do not." TFD (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Having no read the comments and looking further into it, only the review study on micronutrients appears relevant to the article. Of course someone would have to obtain a copy, and we would have to determine that it has not been superseded by later sources that are used in the article. And it does not provide any comment on health issues. TFD (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

brief list of some allowed pesticides and herbicides?

Do you think it would be useful to briefly recapitulate the section on pesticides and herbicides in this article? Some of the discussion above is making me think that some of the editors (and therefore probably some readers) assume that no chemicals are used in organic production and this is not true. as the organic farming article says " Rotenone and pyrethrum are particularly controversial because they work by attacking the nervous system, like most conventional insecticides. Rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and can induce symptoms resembling Parkinson's disease in mammals." And folks in organic are worried about their use of copper and while they are trying to move away from it, it is still a mainstay. I don't like the blanket statement in the article that chemicals used in organic farming are as toxic as those used in BigAg farming - it needs modulation and as someone noted, a source. But it would help point up the conversation, I think, if we had a listing of the chemicals and their relative toxicites as measured by the EPA. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like OR. Also organic food is big argricultural; it's a highly valuable industry. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not if the list provides sources derived from certifying organisations. The Banner _talk 16:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It isn 't OR, Wolfie, just needs sources. Jytdog is right that a blanket statement like "it's just as toxic" is as blatently POV in tone and phrasing as anything on the other side. NPOV goes both ways. The issue for this article is, though, the issue of pesticide residues on the harvested food, so the relevance would be if rotenone/pyhrethrum residues are still on foods and what studies have been done on human health implications. Keep in mind, Wolfie, that there are, in essence, two "organic food" movements; one is somewhat "big agricultural" though much smaller than mass agribusiness, while the other is the world of the local farmer and small-scale producer. But for both, the relevant standards do need to be discussed, somewhere, either at the farming article or here. Montanabw 21:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You need a source that discusses organic farming and pesticides. The article on rotenone says it is being phased out and both articles say they are low risk and degrade quickly. Mentioning that they are allowed is fine, but you need to establish the degree of their use. TFD (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Deuce and Wolfie - Of course content has to be sourced. This page is truly polarized to a rather absurd extent. And I assume we are working on this page together - that is why I brought up the question. Wolfie, I just use the term "BigAg" because "conventional" seems a bit biased to me... no good term that I know of for what most farmers do today, that doesn't sound biased. The value of the "conventional ag" market dwarfs organic. "U.S. sales of organic products were $21.1 billion in 2008--over 3 percent of total food sales" (http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview.aspx)... so just over 96% of all food sales are "conventional" ag. Since this page is so polarized, i will say the following -- if you have a look at my edit history, you will see that in past few months I have worked a lot on the genetically engineered crops/food/controversy/regulatory pages, as well as Monsanto's -- mostly getting rid of a lot of negative BS that anti-GMO forces had piled in, and trying to add high quality, well sourced information - keeping whatever of the original negative content I could find reliable sources for. The work has led me here. I have no bias one way or the other in all this except to include content that is scientifically well grounded and is stated in a NPOV way as per the 5 pillars. Some folks may consider the following a bias: I trust regulators and I don't accept (what i consider to be) conspiracy theories about dramatic regulatory capture of food regulatory agencies. Regualtors say that GM food on the market is as safe as non-GM food, and I have read their bases for saying that and find them reasonable. They say that the level of allowed pesticide residues on food is safe enough, and I have read their bases for saying that and I find them reasonable. I have read a boatload of the material regulators have produced and that they use, and I find it impressive - my sense is that a lot of people who are suspicious of regulators haven't done that. And I guess this work has led me to agree with that the slate article about anti-GM people being the "climate change deniers of the left" -- the amount of ignorance and - to the extent some of these same people are frustrated with actual climate-change-deniers ignoring the scientific consensus on global warming -- hypocrisy, has really surprised me; I have generally found the anti-GM folks to be disappointingly lazy, dogmatic thinkers (big generalization, i know, but i keep running into the same BS over and over). I also find that scientists tend to be horrible communicators. The world is messy. While we know a lot more about food and health than we used to and our analytical instrumentation has gotten incredibly powerful, there is a lot that we may never know about food and health, as designing meaningful clinical trials of food - and paying for them - is incredibly hard, and it is simply unethical to test the toxicity of things like pesticides on people, so that in particular will never happen, which means that thinking about things like pesticide residues is a matter of managing risk based on extrapolation - the risk cannot be eliminated by knowledge. And people in the ag industry (conventional and organic) are all trying to make money, feed the world, and manage risks in many different areas (economic, health, environment, etc) in many different ways. In my mind none of the players are "evil." I understand why people who farm and buy organic do it - they want lower risk to their health and to the environment. I get that. I buy little meat because factory livestock farming is ugly to me, on many levels. I get it. In any case, these articles must be nuanced, neutral, and well sourced. Food is important, and reliable information in Misplaced Pages about food is important. There, that was probably too much but that is where I am coming from. I am not on anybody's "side" here, in the fight you all have gotten into.Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Small detail, Jytdog, but not all non-certified growers are conventional growers. There are a lot of small farmers that grow organically, without taking all the hassle of becoming certified. As a result, they are not allowed to sell their products as organic. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue how big their market share is. The Banner _talk 01:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

additional studies to use?

OK, I did some research today and found the following that are not currently in the article. Both are reviews, and both were in pubmed. I can send these to anybody who wants them - email me at jytdog at gmail.com if you want either.Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

1) Organic Foods: Health and Environmental Advantages and Disadvantages Joel Forman, Janet Silverstein, COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION and COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Pediatrics 2012;130;e1406; originally published online October 22, 2012; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-2579 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23090335

You can read the abstact. I read it and found the whole article and found it nuanced and useful with respect to health claims. The article discusses things like higher vitamin C and the other things you would expect. The body says: "Consumers believe that organic pro- duce is more nutritious than conventionally grown produce, but the research to support that belief is not definitive." And the intro sums up the author's conclusions concisely: "In terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease.... However, current evidence does not support any meaningful nutritional benefits or deficits from eating organic compared with conventionally grown foods, and there are no well-powered human studies that directly demonstrate health benefits or disease protection as a result of consuming an organic diet. Studies also have not demonstrated any detrimental or disease-promoting effects from an organic diet."Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It has only one citation, and not from a clinical perspective. Why use a paediatrics paper when we have clinical nutrition papers? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you want clinical sources on food? The Banner _talk 20:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The body of the article makes it clear that we don't know, because it is very hard to eliminate confounders (food from the same species of plant, farmed the same way, has different nutritional value from place to place and from year to year, and also depends on how fresh it is; and studies of toxicity from pesticide residues are limited by "difficulties measuring past exposures and the lack of a positive temporal relationship between exposure and outcome." ( in other words, proviing cause and effect)Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

2) J Agric Food Chem. 2012 May 9;60(18):4425-9. doi: 10.1021/jf205131q. Epub 2012 Mar 12. Pesticide residues in imported, organic, and "suspect" fruits and vegetables. Winter CK. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22335627

abstract says: Consumers are frequently urged to avoid imported foods as well as specific fruits and vegetables due to health concerns from pesticide residues and are often encouraged to choose organic fruits and vegetables rather than conventional forms. Studies have demonstrated that while organic fruits and vegetables have lower levels of pesticide residues than do conventional fruits and vegetables, pesticide residues are still frequently detected on organic fruits and vegetables; typical dietary consumer exposure to pesticide residues from conventional fruits and vegetables does not appear to be of health significance. Similarly, research does not demonstrate that imported fruits and vegetables pose greater risks from pesticide residues than do domestic fruits and vegetables or that specific fruits and vegetables singled out as being the most highly contaminated by pesticides should be avoided in their conventional forms.Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncited, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Another nice excuse to block a possible positive article. Congratulations, Wolfie, for saying your traditional no without using that word. The Banner _talk 20:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Where are we going with respect to health claims?

WIth respect to health claims for crops, I think there are two main issues:
1) Are differences in nutrients and antinutrients between organic foods and conventional foods clinically meaningful? Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
2) Are differences in pesticide residues between organic foods and conventional foods clinically meaningful?Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

By "clinically meaningful" I mean that we can measure some outcome in people, generally speaking (nothing works the same in everybody).Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on the scientific articles I have read, the answer to both 1 and 2 is "we do not know" I suggest that we pose these two questions at the start of the health section, and state that the answers are not known, and say why. This is really important. Then we can talk about measurable differences in various nutrients/antinutrients and in pesticide levels, butthen at the end we should again make it clear that we do know, scientifically, if those differences matter. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that acceptable to you all?Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You would make me happy when you can ask a question before the two mentioned above. And that is the question: "Are there significant differences in nutrients, antinutrients and pesticide residues between organic foods and conventional foods?" without any medical claim whatsoever. Only when there is a significant difference, is is sensible to ask the question if that is also clinically meaningful. Question 1 can be answered by all reliable sources. Question 2 and 3 by MEDRS-approved sources. The Banner _talk 03:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that chemical analysis, without drawing health claims (just description) does not need MEDRS. The suggestion is interesting to separate it from health claims. Would you please say why you want to do it that way? I was thinking of couching the chemical description within the health claims, because the reason people care about nutrients, antinutrients, and pesticides is health. So I am interested in why you want to separate it. (It is a real question - please remember that I am not part of the past dispute!)Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The first reason is that chemical analyses is a rather neutral way of showing differences between the two growing systems. The second reason is that, in my perception, chemical analyses will be wider available than in medical sources alone. Think about publications of Teagasc, Agricultural Colleges and so on. Most of them will be in easy reach of WP:RS, many will even reach WP:SCIRS. Third reason is that it takes our readers serious and that we believe that they can decide for themselves when we present them neutral and reliable information. The Banner _talk 06:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer! With respect to the sourcing thing, it doesn't matter where the chemical information is, non-MEDRS sources are fine. It is only content (actual sentences) that directly makes health claims that needs MEDRS - we don't have to quarantine by sectioning, if that is what you are concerned about. The other thing I think you are saying, when you write "they can decide for themselves" is that you ~perhaps~ don't want the scientific consensus to influence people's decisions about their health? If so that is kind of.. I don't know...kind of anti-science-y. Which I don't understand. It is especially strange to me, since science's answer is "we don't know" which means that there is no recommendation one way or the other. I don't mean to be offensive, I am just trying to have the conversation on the surface instead of glancingly. All that said, I think organizationally it works to have a section on chemical differences and then a section on health impact. Jytdog (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"kind of anti-science-y" is not the reason behind it. It is more "anti MEDRS-stranglehold". I have strong the impression that two editors due to their personal believes, misused WP:MEDRS to prevent anything positive in the article. Exactly the same is happening at Organic milk (and is locked too). The Banner _talk 14:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have agreed to the organization you suggest, so I don't want to get too tangled in this. But this seems to be right in the heart of where the past troubles came from. To clarify my stance, the reason for the MEDRS standard, is to ensure that health-related information is based on the best science we can find - that is why MEDRS is more stringent. It is very very clear to me under the various Source policies that descriptions of chemical differences between organic and conventional food will not be subject to MEDRS and I would be very surprised if anybody would say that. It is only content that connects those differences to their relevance to health, that will require MEDRS. I realize that the past was painful but let's move forward and not look backward. I have sent a message to each of Yobol and Wolfie asking them to comment on this so we can lay it to rest. (wolfie seems to be taking a wiki-break so may not respond soon)Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Banner let's be sure we are on the same page. We can have a section on chemical differences supported by plain old RS, but it will not make health claims. That is what you are I are agreeing to here?Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I have in mind. The Banner _talk 09:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Great! Hopefully we can gain consensus around this as a way forward.Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

To use an analogy, orange juice has more vitamin C and more sugar than lemon juice. Yet people who drink lemon juice typically add more sugar than is present in orange juice. Can we report that? Yes. Can we say that one is healthier than the other? No. TFD (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, it would be enough to just report that "orange juice has more vitamin C and more sugar than lemon juice". The Banner _talk 08:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Chemical differences aren't covered by MEDRS? Please ... What if we had sources saying food X contains arsenic or some toxin. It's a chemical, but it's pretty damn obvious that it requires MEDRS level sourcing. Basically, it will be implying that it has clinical relevance without saying it; it's putting text into an article and hoping readers arrive at the conclusion that it's relevant for health. We already have highly cited, fully MEDRS compliant sources in this section which you can work from to expand the section. You have proposed no specific sources, but rather want agreement a priori on something vague that you have decided you expect you will see when you go get sources. To comment on: "Based on the scientific articles I have read, the answer to both 1 and 2 is "we do not know" ", then I suggest you read the MEDRS sources because there have been a fair amount of studies. The evidence just doesn't support it. There are minor differences, and they are mentioned by MEDRS sources, and thus can be added, given the proper context that they don't have health impacts. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Chemical differences do not = health differences. It is unscientific and wrong to say that every chemical difference makes a health difference. About arsenic (great example btw) see here: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/Metals/ucm280202.htm Much of the food that we eat has low levels of arsenic in it. So yeah, what if an article acknowledged this chemical fact? It could say (chemical fact)Much of the food that we eat has low levels of arsenic in it. and then give the health fact: High levels of arsenic are toxic. Chemical description, followed by health description. Simple, not complicated. About MEDRS sources and health claims for organic food - they say that we cannot support health claims for organic food. We agree on that. We seem to disagree on what that means. You seem to interpet it as meaning a positive statement: "organic food is not healthier than conventional food." But this is not actually true. I live in a regulatory world, and what it means is the following: there is insufficient evidence to make the positive statement, "organic food is healthier". We do not know, scientifically, if organic food is as healthy, more healthy, or less healthy. If you ask a scientist to make a positive statement about any one of those three options, they would have to say, "I cannot." In other words, we don't know. The MEDRS papers all make a point of saying that further - and much better - studies are needed. They also point out the difficulty and expense of doing such trials. As I said before, I do not think a positive health statement - or any statement of knowledge - is going to be possible - at least not until we develop better technologyJytdog (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re Basically, it will be implying that it has clinical relevance without saying it--I too share this exact concern. Especially in the case where we have 2 articles, one WP:MEDRS-compliant and one not, and they both state something about the level of a chemical generally considered to important to human health (e.g. vitamin or fat levels... even just the word "vitamin" is nearly exclusively related to nutrition and its health consequences), we need to go with the WP:MEDRS source and not the other. And, take for example the case of a non-WP:MEDRS test result that found the level of some other chemical... what's the encyclopedic importance of including such a result, expecially in an article about food. So I am struggling to come up with a legitimate reason here to use non-WP:MEDRS sources for findings of levels of chemicals normally associated with their human health consequences, in an article about a general class of product (food) that by its very definition is utilized for its health effects. Zad68 15:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote above, chemical difference is not necessarily a health difference. I am a bit surpised to see your last sentence - most people in the developed world eat from habit and pleasure. Something like a drug is "by its very definition is utilized for its health effects". Food is way to huge a thing, both culturally and chemically, to be "primarily utilized for its health effects." What I am trying to do here is find a middle path between you guys and Banner so that we end up with explicit health claims that are MEDRS and no health claims anywhere else. I am committed to there being no "back door" and as you can see above, Banner agreed not to try to slip any in. I think this is a good faith middle way.Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. The arsenic article contains extensive information that is sourced to earth sciences, not medical science. Since all chemicals have potential nutritional or toxic effects, the logical conclusion of your argument is that chemistry textbooks are not reliable sources for any articles. The point is moot anyway because there is no disagreement between health and agricultural sources on the levels of toxins and nutrients. And MEDRS has no restriction about using peer-reviewed review studies by experts in their fields. TFD (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Do I understand it correctly that mentioning the word "vitamin" is automatically and immediately a health claim in your opinion? The Banner _talk 20:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wolfie, MEDRS is not a policy carved in stone, it is a guideline, an advice. It is NOT mandatory to apply WP:MEDRS on this article at all. The Banner _talk 19:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Banner, for what it is worth, my advice is to not engage in this kind of general conversation - it is not helpful and the argument is not going to fly, in any case... I for one will not allow a statement with a health claim to stand without MEDRS. I think wolfie is being a bit crazy on the chemical thing but let's not open up the other side too, please.Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions of whether organic tastes better are not subject to MEDRS - Just the usual reliable sourcing. I don't care about the issues of taste very much so am not planning on spending time on that.Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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